Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PETITIONS

Boroughs of Wembley and Willesden

Mr. Russell: Mr. Speaker, I beg to present two Petitions to this honourable House, both from residents of Wembley and both with the same object—although their wording is slightly different—namely, to protest against the proposal in the London Government Bill to amalgamate the Boroughs of Wembley and Willesden.
One is sponsored by the Conservative Party in both Wembley North and South divisions and states:
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House will take note of the extremely bitter resentment and deep-rooted antagonism felt by the people of the Borough of Wembley towards the proposed amalgamation of Wembley and Willesden under the scheme for the reorganisation of local government in Greater London as it now stands and reject that part of the Bill which would give effect to the merger.
The other Petition is sponsored by the Liberal Party in Wembley South and states:
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House will take note of the view of local residents that Wembley and Willesden are capable without amalgamation of carrying out the functions of Greater London Boroughs, but that if the House insists on Wembley being merged with another authority that authority should be Harrow and not Willesden.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

To lie upon the Table.

CIVIL CONTINGENCIES FUND, 1961–62

Accounts ordered,
of the Civil Contingencies Fund, 1961–62, showing (1) the Receipts and Payments in connection with the Fund in the year ended the 31st day of March, 1962, and (2) the Distribution of the Capital of the Fund at the commencement and close of the year; with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon."—[Mr. Barber.]

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Foodstuffs (Imports from E.E.C.)

Mr. Ridley: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will now give an assurance that he will impose variable import levies on food stuffs imported into the United Kingdom from the European Economic Community, in the event of the United Kingdom not joining the Community.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Christopher Soames): It is clearly not appropriate to make any statement about what our policy would be towards a Community of which we were not members whilst we are still negotiating for membership of that Community.

Mr. Ridley: While many of us hope that the negotiations will still be brought to a satisfactory conclusion, would it not be wise of my right hon. Friend to support the British agricultural markets in the event of failure, and would not he help these negotiations if he made some such plans?

Mr. Soames: I do not think that there is any question of not helping with the negotiations. If the negotiations are not brought to a successful conclusion, however, our agricultural policy will have to be fitted in with our broad trading policy.

Tropical and Semi-Tropical Fish Farms

Mr. Wainwright: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consideration he has given to the feasibility of developing tropical semi-tropical fish farms in special reservoirs supplied by water discharged from the Central Electricity Generating Board's power stations.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Scott-Hopkins): None, Sir. If the hon. Member is referring to the Central Electricity Generating Board's recent experiments,


these are concerned mainly with assessing damage to fish by heated water and not with the possibility of developing fish famous.

Mr. Wainwright: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that this country is not sufficiently interested in fish farms? Is he not aware that if Britain goes into the Common Market the other members will be able to fish up to the beaches of this country and that, therefore, if we do not do something for fish fairmers and take advantage of all these experiments being held by the Central Electricity Generating Board and other parts of the industry, we shall have a lack of supplies of fish?

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: That is a much wider question. There is a later Question relating to this matter.

Land Drainage and Flood Prevention Works

Sir B. Janner: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in view of the unemployment situation, what plans he has made for allocating more money for land drainage, flood prevention and other works for which he is responsible, so as to utilise more manpower.

Mr. Soames: The capital investment allocation for land drainage and flood prevention in 1963–64 is to be increased by £½ million, making a total of £8·4 million. This will enable river boards, internal drainage boards, and local authorities to make some increase in their scale of work, and to that extent have an effect on the level of employment in particular areas.

Sir B. Janner: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his reply. Is he in constant contact with his colleagues to see that as much as possible is expended now so that the unemployment situation may be relieved—to whatever extent it can be? Is he prepared to give an assurance that if he does not get the satisfaction that he wants, he will let us know, so that we can help him in the matter?

Mr. Soames: I am not anxious about this. A great deal of work on sea defences is already going on and is helping to provide local employment.

However, most of these projects are long-term and take a good deal of planning. It is difficult to speed them up further.

Mr. B. Harrison: Can my right hon. Friend say whether an increasing amount year by year has been spent on this work over the last few years?

Mr. Soames: The amount spent next year will be more than for this year. I am afraid that I do not have the figures for past years in my head.

Mr. Hilton: Will not the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the suggestion by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner)? Many people who normally work on the land are now unemployed. While weather conditions are against employment at the moment, will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the possibility of allocating more money for land drainage, as a good deal more could be done to improve land by drainage, and that would also bring welcome relief to the unemployed?

Mr. Soames: There is the increase of £500,000 in the Estimates which I have mentioned, but that is no answer to temporary unemployment which is brought about by the bad weather over a period of weeks which may come to an end at any time.

Sir J. Maitland: My right hon. Friend mentioned sea defences. Is he aware that in the vicinity of Skegness, where there is nearly 7 per cent. unemployment, there is a scheme ready for implementation? Will he bear that particularly in mind when considering matters such as these?

Mr. Soames: Yes, I will gladly look into that.

Animal Transport

Mr. Burden: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) when he expects to receive the Report of the Working Party which is reviewing the problem of animal transport;
(2) If he will introduce legislation to exercise control over the conditions under which calves in transit are fed,


and place restrictions on the distance they may be transported when destined for market and for slaughter.

Mr. Soames: Officials from my Department and the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland have prepared proposals for revising and consolidating the various Transit of Animals Orders, and further provisions on the feeding and watering of animals in transit by road, rail and sea. Work on these is proceeding. I do not think, however, that it will be practical to try to limit the distances travelled.

Mr. Burden: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that these calves are pitifully helpless baby animals and that, if necessary, even the profit motive should be subordinated to their humane treatment? Will not he consider looking into the matter in order to try to insist upon localised slaughter so that these unfortunate little animals do not have to travel great distances without food and proper care? Will he take immediate steps to ban the resale of young calves for at least fourteen days after their original sale?

Mr. Soames: I do not believe that it is in any way the general practice to transport these calves for long distances. Indeed, it would not be economic to do so. The average value of these calves is only between £2 and £3 and it is only natural for the farmer to wish to send them to a market as close as possible. I agree that there are alterations to be made in the transport arrangements and, as I said in my main Answer, we are proceeding with those alterations. However, it is a fact of farming life that it is not economic to rear these animals on. They are therefore disposed of as early as possible, although I quite agree that we want to see that they are not caused unnecessary suffering.

Mr. Paget: Is not the truth of the matter that no transport regulations will prevent unnecessary suffering? Is not the solution to this problem regulations that these calves must not be moved alive from the farm until, say, fourteen days after birth, or must be slaughtered on the farm with a humane killer? Although they would then not be so valuable—'they would only be dog meat—the suffering would be limited.

Mr. Soames: I am certain that if such regulations were introduced—to provide that no calves could be moved from the farm until they were fourteen days old—many calves would be slaughtered on the farm. It is much less cruel for the calves to be slaughtered by experts in licensed slaughterhouses than by the farmer on the farm.

Mr. Burden: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

Animals (Ritual Slaughter)

Mr. Ridley: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will consult leaders of the Jewish community and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals with a view to setting up an inquiry into ritual slaughter satisfactory to both bodies.

Mr. Soames: As my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord President of the Council has said in another place, if the Government were to receive a request for an inquiry which they were satisfied would meet with the requirements of the parties representing the conflicting views in this matter, we should give it sympathetic consideration.

Mr. Ridley: In view of the widespread allegations and propaganda about ritual slaughter which have been circulated, does not my right hon. Friend think that it would be better, from the point of view of both parties, if there were an official inquiry to put die public mind at rest?

Mr. Soames: The will of the House was last expressed on this matter as recently as 1956, when a proposal to change the law was rejected on a free vote. More recently, the matter was debated in another place and a Bill there was withdrawn. The Government would have to be satisfied that any proposal for an inquiry was acceptable to the orthodox Jewish community as well as to the opponents of ritual slaughter.

Millers' Grist

Mr. Renton: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of the millers' grist consisted of home-grown wheat in each of the last


five months of 1962; and how these proportions compare with those during the last five months of 1961.

Mr. Soames: With permission, I will circulate this information, which is a table of figures, in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Renton: Meanwhile, would my right hon. Friend say whether the millers are using a larger proportion of homegrown wheat in the grist during these winter months? Will he bear in mind that, because of the very large homegrown crop, he will have to meet an enormous bill for deficiency payments unless the millers can help him all they can?

Mr. Soames: There is precious little difference between the last five months of 1962 and the last five months of 1961—about 29 per cent. in 1962 compared with 30 per cent. in 1961. However, in November and December the proportion was higher last year than it was the year before. The National Association of British and Irish Millers has undertaken on behalf of the millers to endeavour to use at least 1¼ million tons of home-grown wheat in the grist and to exceed that target if possible. The millers are well aware of the obligations which rest upon them.

Following are the figures:


PERCENTAGE OF HOME-GROWN IN WHEAT MILLED


—
1962
1961


August
…
…
18·5
24·0


September
…
…
26·1
31·5


October
…
…
32·9
33·9


November
…
…
34·3
33·3


December
…
…
33·8
28·4

Mundon Wash Drainage Scheme

Mr. B. Harrison: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he yet has received from the Essex River Board the revised drainage scheme for Mundon Wash.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: No, Sir. But I understand 'that a draft of a revised scheme is to be discussed jointly by the engineers of the river board and this Ministry during the course of next week.

Mr. B. Harrison: Can we expect some action to be taken and some work to be commenced on this project within the next six months?

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I am sure that my hon. Friend will realise that we shall examine this new scheme with the utmost expediency.

Livestock, Dartmoor (Helicopter Services)

Mr. Lipton: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is taking to recover the cost of helicopter services provided to farmers owning livestock on Dartmoor.

Mr. Soames: The Government have decided that the Exchequer should bear the cost of the helicopter and aircraft flights requested by my Department for the supply of fodder to farms, on Dartmoor and elsewhere in England and Wales, which are in urgent need and have been isolated by the recent blizzards. I shall be asking the House to approve a Supplementary Vote for this purpose when the final cost is known. The cost of the fodder delivered will be paid by the farmer to his supplier in the normal way.

Mr. Lipton: Does the Minister realise that these commoners turn out their livestock for the winter without caring how the animals will survive—[HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."]—without caring how the animals will survive, and then expect Service helicopters and voluntary organisations to come to the rescue without themselves making any contribution towards the very expensive costs of the helicopter services? Why should the taxpayer continue to subsidise these people in this way after they have been proved guilty of the grossest possible neglect?

Mr. Soames: What the hon. Member has said is not at all fair. As he knows, it is rare to have a cold spell as severe as this and lasting so long as this. This was a humanitarian action, 'the cost of which is out of proportion to the value of the animals. However, if we had not carried out this airlift there would have been even more severe losses.

Sir H. Studholme: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Brixton is a very long way from Dartmoor, and that this is a very complicated matter? Is he also aware that it is a great pity that people who do not fully understand it should make sensational statements? Is he


also aware that when the thaw comes, it may well be that the losses will be proved to be greater in the lower country, which is enclosed and where the drifts are worse, than on the open moor?

Mr. Darling: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we are very grateful for the services which have been provided in this way and for the manner in which he is helping to deal with the expenditure?

E.E.C. (British Fishing Interests)

Mr. Lipton: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what arrangements he has made to date in the Common Market negotiations for the protecting of British fishing interests generally, and inshore fishing in particular.

Mr. Soames: Fisheries are to be the subject of a common policy which has not yet been formulated by the Community. We have made known to them OUT views on this.

Mr. Lipton: Is the right hom. Gentleman aware that Dr. Mansholt, the Vice-President of the European Economic Community, who is specially responsible for fisheries problems, said that
for the members of the Community territorial waters and fishing zones can no longer exist.
What action is the night hon. Gentleman taking to protect the interests of inshore fishermen in British territorial waters?

Mr. Soames: Without seeing the context in which that remark was made I could not comment on it. Further, I do not understand it, because at the moment there is no common fisheries policy. It has not yet been drawn up by the Community, and so the words which the hon. Gentleman has read could not apply at the present time.

Mr. Wall: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that Britain's entry into the E.E.C. would entail negotiating common fishery limits under the Treaty of Rome? Would not he also agree that if our entry into the Common Market is to be delayed he should give serious consideration to extending the three-mile limit which is bearing very hardly on inshore fishermen?

Mr. Soames: Of course, it would entail negotiation between the present members of the Community let alone the additional members, before formulating a common fishing policy. As to the extent of limits outside the context of the Common Market, this goes wider than the Question, but, as my hon. Friend knows, the question of limits is constantly being kept under review as the circumstances change.

Mr. Hoy: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware how important this industry is even to the very small communities throughout the land? Certainly in Scotland it is extremely important that their interests should be safeguarded, because their very livelihood depends on it. May we have an assurance that any settlement which is effected will be satisfactory to our home industry, and that it will not be presented with a fait accompliafter some agreement has been reached with regard to the rest of the negotiations that are taking place?

Mr. Soames: Our position with regard to a common fisheries policy is bound to be left open and in no way closed if these negotiations are brought to a conclusion in a reasonable time. There is as yet no common fisheries policy and there would not be a timetable drawn up until after the conclusion of the negotiations.

Live and Dead Poultry (Importation Restrictions)

Viscount Lambton: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will relax existing restrictions on the importation of live and dead poultry following the introduction of the fowl pest vaccination policy.

Mr. Soames: I have decided following the recommendations of the Plant Committee to allow the importation of breeding stock and hatching eggs where this is likely to be of benefit to the commercial stock in this country. Any importation will be made only under strict veterinary control. There will be no relaxation on the importation of poultry carcases as we cannot afford the risk of adding to the extent of infection.

Viscount Lambton: Will my right hon. Friend say whether the precise


restrictions on poultry will be relaxed or retained if we enter the Common Market?

Mr. Soames: The Treaty of Rome provides explicitly for regulations for animal health to be continued within the Community.

Viscount Lambton: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that these restrictions will remain entirely as they are at the moment?

Mr. Soames: This is a question of animal health. Whether they will remain entirely as they are at present has nothing to do with the Common Market. Article 36 sets out that regulations in the interests of improving the animal health position An any country may remain in force.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF DEFENCE

Cyprus Base (New Works)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Minister of Defence if he will state the expenditure on new works completed in the Cyprus Sovereign Base areas since the new Defence Plan was published; and what is the proposed further expenditure there.

The Minister of Defence (Mr. Peter Thorneycroft): £13·5 million, plus £4 million on new works approved to date.

Mr. Allaun: If, as is well known, the number of British troops is diminishing there, why are the Government spending millions on new military works? Secondly, would the Minister give the House an assurance that there is no connection with a nuclear or rocket base on the island?

Mr. Thorneycroft: The money is being spent to build accommodation for troops either there or planned to be there.

Mr. Allaun: Would the Minister answer the second part of my supplementary question? Will he give the House an assurance that there is no connection with nuclear or rocket bases on the island?

Mr. Thorneycroft: These are barracks and accommodation for our Air Force and for the ground troops stationed

there. I would certainly give no assurance as between nuclear and conventional weapons.

Skybolt Missile

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Minister of Defence what is now the position with regard to the Skybolt missile.

Mr. Thorneycroft: The United States Government are terminating all production in connection with the Skybolt programme.

Mr. Wyatt: Will the Minister say what consideration has been given to the possibility of extending the range of Blue Steel and perhaps developing a further type of British air missile? Could he also explain why he thinks he is any more likely to get Polaris than Skybolt?

Mr. Thorneycroft: That is quite a different series of questions.

Mr. Rankin: asked the Minister of Defence if, in view of the renewed failure of the Skybolt missile, he will make a statement on its future role in Bomber Command.

Mr. Thorneycroft: The question no longer arises since Her Majesty's Government have announced their intention not to proceed with the Skybolt missile.

Mr. Rankin: If the right hon. Gentleman followed Questions he would know that this Question was put down long before that decision was reached. Will he tell us whether he disagreed or agreed with the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey), who is chairman of the Tory back bench defence committee, when he said that Skybolt was a perfectly efficient weapon? In view of that, why did not the Government take Skybolt when they got the chance of having it? Was it because Polaris, which is still unproved, will be cheaper than Skybolt would have been?

Mr. Thorneycroft: This Question asked what its future role is in Bomber Command. It has not got one.

Mr. Rankin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I have your guidance on this matter?

Mr. Speaker: Either it is a point of order or it is not. I do not give guidance free of charge.

Mr. Rankin: May I have your guidance on this matter, Mr. Speaker? Hon. Members often put down Questions which are not reached until long after they are tabled. Surely we are entitled to an answer to the supplementary question which arises from the Question, whether the right hon. Gentleman seeks to evade it or not?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order. It is not for this reason, that the Chair has no power to compel a Minister to give any answer of any kind, good or bad.

Nuclear Weapons

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Minister of Defence what steps are taken to check that those with access to nuclear weapons in the United Kingdom are free from mental instability, drunkenness or other tendencies dangerous in the circumstances.

Mr. Thorneycroft: There are stringent selection and training procedures for officers and men dealing with nuclear or indeed other type of weapons. These are our main safeguard. As regards nuclear weapons, no one man can initiate their use.

Mr. Allaun: If such precautions have to be taken, both here and in America, are not they an admission that a catastrophic accident could, in fact, occur? Secondly, is the Minister certain that it is possible without fail to detect such tendencies?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I think that it would be very dangerous to have anyone who was drunk or mentally unstable in charge of any weapon.

Mr. Paget: Can the right hon. Gentleman give this assurance, because I think that it would comfort some people? Can he give an assurance that no single person, however mad, however drunk, however violent or however hard he tried could explode an atomic weapon?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I think the important thing is to ensure that it takes more than one man to explode the weapon, and that is so.

Brunei Operations

Sir J. Smyth: asked the Minister of Defence if he will give further details of the operations in Brunei.

Mr. Thorneycroft: I will, with permission, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
I should like to add my tribute to the courage and resolution of the Services, all ranks of whom have reacted swiftly and effectively to the calls made upon them, and my sympathy for the relatives of those who have lost their lives.

Sir J. Smyth: I thank my right hon. Friend for issuing a detailed report, which I am sure we will study with great interest. Does not he agree that the British officers and Gurkha ranks of the l/2nd Gurkha Rifles acquitted themselves superbly in this operation, particularly in the original fly-in, which had to be conducted at night, on a strange aerodrome, and then in a night operation which had to be carried out in an unknown town, in view of the urgency of the situation, thus making the rest of the operations comparatively easy?

Mr. Thorneycroft: The Gurkhas discharged their duties with the skill and courage which we have grown to expect of them.
Following is the statement:
As a result of a review of the state of readiness by the Commander-in-Chief, Far East, several days before, forces were at about 12 hours' notice when help was requested by the Sultan of Brunei to deal with the attempt to overthrow his Government which was made early on the morning of 8th December, 1962. The first troops began to arrive by R.A.F. aircraft the same evening, and within a new days a well-balanced force was built up. At its peak this included three major Army units, two Royal Marine Commandos and additional small elements, and 11 ships of the Royal Navy, including supply ships. The R.A.F. was operating short and long-range transport, fighter and photographic reconnaissance air craft. Naval helicopters from H.M.S. "Albion" were also operating in the area.
The forces were at first under the command of Brigadier J. B. A. Glennie; he was succeeded by Major-General W. C. Walker who became Director of Operations.
As the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies announced on 20th December, these forces, working with the police forces, had by then restored order in the main centres and secured the release of all hostages. The


main military operation was therefore completed last month, but security forces have been continuing to round up rebels and to recover arms and ammunition. Their attention has turned more to outlying areas, but operations are at present hampered by rains and serious flooding and are taking second-place to flood relief work. The Services have been giving all-out help in difficult conditions which in some areas are the worst in living memory. A British soldier died on patrol last week while crossing a flooded river.
Total British Service casualties in the operation were eight killed and 28 wounded. Between 50 and 60 rebels were killed and about 2,000 taken prisoner.
This military operation shows that our conventional forces are poised ready to deal with any brushfire outbreak, that their reaction time is swift, and that inter-Service co-operation is of the highest order.

Nuclear Deterrent

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Minister of Defence what are the weapons now available to the United Kingdom included in the nuclear deterrent.

Mr. Thorneycroft: The V-bombers equipped with Blue Steel and free-falling bombs.

Mr. Shinwell: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that several of these nuclear deterrent weapons are likely to be outmoded in the course of a few years? As there is some speculation about the usefulness of the Polaris submarines, has he any proposals to make for the purpose of guaranteeing their adequate defence?

Mr. Thorneycroft: There is speculation about many things, but this is the nuclear deterrent today. It is an extremely effective one. It will remain effective, and it will be powerfully reinforced with the introduction of the Polaris submarine.

Mr Shinwell: But has not the right hon. Gentleman himself asserted that several of the existing nuclear weapons will be outmoded in the course of a few years? Undoubtedy there is speculation about the advantage of the Polaris submarine. Does the right hon. Gentleman's mind not torn in the direction of more conventional weapons?

Mr. Thorneycroft: My mind takes account of both nuclear and conventional weapons.

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the Minister of Defence what steps he now intends to take to maintain an independent British nuclear deterrent between 1965 and 1970; and what the estimated cost of such measures will be.

Mr. Prentice: asked the Minister of Defence what is the likely duration of the gap between the time when the Royal Air Force bombers cease to provide an effective deterrent and the time when the Polaris missile will be an operational part of United Kingdom forces; and if he will make a statement on Government defence policy during that gap.

Mr. Thorneycroft: I would ask the hon. Members to await next week's debate.

Mr. Hamilton: Can the Minister give us any idea in this instance of what the additional cost will be? Can he further say why we want this independent nuclear deterrent? Against whom do we expect to use it?

Mr. Thorneycroft: We have a deterrent to deter other people from threatening us.

Mr. Prentice: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that in their desperation the Government have resumed a policy which they abandoned when they 6rst decided to buy the Sky bolt missile, namely, to try to develop a British independent deterrent for the years between now and 1970? If the policy was unrealistic two or three years ago, why is it realistic now?

Mr. Thorneycroft: As far as I know, it has been realistic throughout.

Mr. H. Wilson: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's references to next week's debate and his previous failure to answer questions about costs, will he undertake that when the debate comes along he will give the House the fullest information about this in every detail—as full information as that which he gave the Tory back bench committee?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I can give the right hon. Gentleman that categoric assurance even before the debate.

Sir G. Nabarro: In response to the clamour from the benches opposite to


abandon the British nuclear deterrent, will my right hon. Friend make it clear that any reliance to a larger extent upon conventional forces would inevitably mean the reintroduction of conscription?

Mr. Thorneycroft: A policy of greatly Increased conventional forces would mean a reintroduction of conscription. Indeed, there are some who urge this as an alternative. Our own policy is to have a balanced force of conventional and nuclear weapons.

Expenditure

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Defence what is his estimate of the increase in Britain's defence budget in the next few years involved in the decisions taken at the Bahamas meetings.

Mr. Thorneycroft: The strategic nuclear deterrent is expected to take about 10 per cent. of the defence budget next year. It is too early to say anything about subsequent years.

Mr. Swingler: Does that mean that the decisions were taken at the Bahamas meeting without any estimate being made of what the cost would be to Britain in the next few years?

Mr. Thorneycroft: Forward costings of projects as complex as this are not too reliable, and I would rather not tie myself to a precise percentage.

Mr. Swingler: What was the right hon. Gentleman's estimate, on the basis of the decision taken at the Bahamas meeting, of the cost of the defence budget for the next five or ten years?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I did not think that a firm estimate could be made.

Mr. Bellenger: In pinning his faith to this weapon, is not the Minister himself indulging in a great deal of speculation?

Mr. Thorneycroft: Speculation, and intelligent anticipation.

Mr. H. Wilson: In view of the recent reports of the Public Accounts Committee about the appalling miscalculations of the Defence Ministry on costs connected with missiles and atomic weapons, will the Minister think again about giving the House some information? Is it not a fact that when he

came bouncing back from the Bahamas and appeared on television he was prepared to make sweeping categoric statements about what it would not cost? Could not the House of Commons be taken into his confidence?

Mr. Thorneycroft: It is easy to say what it would not cost, but I was asked to compare the cost of this with the cost of Skybolt. As one of the principal reasons for the Americans abandoning Skybolt was that it was impossible to cost it, it is obviously difficult to make a comparison between the two.

Polaris Submarines

Commander Courtney: asked the Minister of Defence whether, in view of the considerable operational and technical training problems which will require solution before the first British Polaris submarine joins the fleet, he will approach the United States Secretary of Defence with a view to a loan by the United States Navy to the Royal Navy of one American Mark I Polaris submarine equipped with dummy warheads and provided with adequate United States instructional personnel.

Mr. Thorneycroft: The problem of operational and technical training of crews for British Polaris submarines is among those being discussed with the United States naval authorities. Her Majesty's Government will take whatever steps are necessary in the light of those discussions, but I cannot anticipate their outcome.

Commander Courtney: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that such a loan would be within the spirit of the Nassau agreement? Would not he perhaps further agree that an extension of this principle might provide a distinct contribution towards bridging the so-called missile gap?

Mr. Thorneycroft: The second part of that supplementary question raises a different point. The Question asks about training in particular. The relations between the Royal Navy and the American Navy are extremely close and cordial. These discussions are going very well. I will consider all these suggestions, but at the moment I would rather await the outcome of these discussions.

Mr. Mason: But does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that we shall be subject to adopting the American technique of training and the American communications system for the effectiveness of this Polaris force, and will not this mean that the deterrent will be more American than British?

Mr. Thorneycroft: We do not want to be so jealous that we do not pay the slightest attention to the experience of any other Navy in the operating of these submarines.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: Would it not be better to abandon this rather transparent defence of this nuclear deterrent which is supposed to be ours, and get on with some conventional arms of our own?

Mr. Thorneycroft: If we were prepared to strip ourselves of all powers to have any form of nuclear deterrent, yes—but that would be a very large issue.

Submarines (Operational Messages)

Commander Courtney: asked the Minister of Defence if existing British communications systems are adequate to ensure the reception of operational messages by Her Majesty's submarines when submerged.

Mr. Thorneycroft: Yes, Sir.

Commander Courtney: In view of the references made by hon. and right hon. Members opposite to recent television programmes, will my right hon. Friend make sure that this technical point is brought to the particular attention of the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown)?

Mr. Thorneycroft: No doubt the right hon. Gentleman will be studying these Questions.

Mr. Paget: Communications with Polaris submarines are on the N.A.T.O. network, and are intended to be on the N.A.T.O. network. If they are out of the N.A.T.O. network, does the right hon. Gentleman propose to duplicate the whole of this signalling system? If so, what does he think the cost will be?

Mr. Thorneycroft: Our communications with our own submarines will be entirely within our own control.

Mr. Wigg: Did the right hon. Gentleman consult the present Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations before making this reply? Is not he aware that in 1959 the Minister then occupying his office rejected Polaris on the specific ground that it was detectable and vulnerable and, in fact, would require a very expensive communications and supply system, which did not exist?

Mr. Thorneycroft: This Question refers to our communications with our own submarines. In view of the great deal of speculation that has gone on, I want to make it clear beyond peradventure that these communications are under our own control. They are our own, and there is no technical difficulty whatsoever.

Mr. G. R. Howard: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there is the closest possible co-operation, in connection with developments in these measures of under-water communication, between the Americans and ourselves? Will he further say that we will use all these developments for our own submarines when they come into service?

Mr. Thorneycroft: There are the closest relations. They are being helpful in every way.

Defence (Higher Organisation)

Mr. Wall: asked the Minister of Defence if he will make a statement on the examination of the higher organisation of defence and the possible reorganisation of his Department and the Service Departments.

Mr. Thorneycroft: An examination is being made to see whether any changes in the central organisation for defence are desirable in the light of developments in our armed forces and military strategy since the current arrangements were announced in the 1958 White Paper. Lord Ismay and Sir Ian Jacob have kindly agreed to assist me with consideration of this problem. The House will, of course, be informed of any changes which the Government may decide to make as a result of this examination.

Mr. Wall: Is it not a fact that the decision about Polaris could bring up such questions as the future of the


Royal Air Force and the conventional Navy, and is it not, therefore, the psychological moment to start a long-term investigation into the possible future amalgamation of the Services? Can my right hon. Friend say whether the statement he has made could cover this question?

Mr. Thorneycroft: It could cover it. But I should not like to give the impression that I was contemplating amalgamating all the Services. The main purpose of this consideration is directed to the central organisation.

Mr. Shinwell: Was it necessary to appoint a committee consisting of Lord Ismay and Sir Ian Jacob to undertake this task? Is not it the case that in the last ten years we have had eight or nine Ministers of Defence, and have not they made up their minds, on the basis of their own experience, that the existence of three Service Departments, with the Ministry of Defence, is completely outmoded and that what is desirable is a form of integration?

Mr. Thorneycroft: There might be something in that comment if I had appointed a committee. But it is not a committee. I have asked two very distinguished soldiers, with great experience in the central organisation of defence, to help me in working out the answers to some of these problems.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I recognise that few people have greater experience of the machinery of Government in connection with defence than has Lord Ismay in relation to the period both before and during the Second World War. But can my right hon. Friend give us more indication of what were the terms of reference given to Lord Ismay and Sir Ian Jacob?

Mr. Thorneycroft: Only to the extent that a great deal of consideration—as was said by the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell)—has been given over the years to the question of how best the central organisation for defence should be run, including what should be its relations with Chiefs of Staff, the Service Ministries and the rest. There has been a great deal of argument about whether there ought to be more centralisation or less. A number of plans have been made and various suggestions

advanced inside and outside the Department. In considering them, and any ideas of my own, I thought it would be helpful to call in, not a committee, but two men who, as will be acknowledged from both sides of the House, have special experience in this field, to help me form my conclusions about what. should be the next step.

Mr. Woodburn: May I ask the Minister whether he is aware that at the end of the last war the appreciation was that in any future war one of the first tasks of the Army would be in connection with Civil Defence? Has the right hon. Gentleman considered all this in connection with the defence of the country? Is he bringing in the matter of the organisation of Civil Defence as part of this large question?

Mr. Thorneycroft: The question of the organisation of Civil Defence is more a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. Nevertheless, the right hon. Gentleman is quite right. These things are linked and I will bear in mind the suggestion he has made.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Will the Minister make arrangements for a debate on Civil Defence during the coming months?

Mr. Thorneycroft: It does not quite fall within my responsibilities to arrange the business of the House. But I will pass on the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion through the usual channels.

Nassau Agreement

Mr. Mason: asked the Minister of Defence if he will make a statement on the ways and means of implementing the Nassau Agreement.

Mr. Thorneycroft: Ways and means are being discussed both with the Americans and in the N.A.T.O. Council.

Mr. Mason: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that in the development of the Polaris submarine fleet there will be no increase in defence expenditure and no standstill in supplying their requirements OR in the development of the other Services? Secondly, can he give the House an assurance that in the 1970s, by the time when we should have built our small contribution, the


Polaris submarine will still be an effective deterrent?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I have every reason to suppose that the Polaris submarine will be a very significant deterrent for many years to come. But I certainly cannot give an undertaking to build it free. It is bound to cost money. There is nothing I cam do to prevent that.

Mr. Willis: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us the proposed size of the Polaris programme, or when can he toll Che House what it will be in terms of numbers?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I may not tell the hon. Gentleman that. I hope, perhaps later, to say what is the initial number to be laid down—not at this stage but later on. I do not? necessarily say it is the total number which may be completed.

Service Pensions

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Minister of Defence how many ratings and other ranks of the three armed Services are in receipt of Service pensions; how many widows of ratings and other ranks receive ordinary Service widows' pensions; and bow many widows of ratings and other ranks receive no Service widows' pensions at all.

Mr. Thorneycroft: As the Answer consists of a table of figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Johnson: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether that information will contain figures showing the number of widows who do not get pensions?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I will try to ensure that it does, and if not I will have the information inserted.

Dr. King: Will the Minister consider seriously the debate on Service men's pensions and the Royal Warrant which took place just before the Christmas Recess with a view to remedying the hardship suffered by some widows of Service men?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I have studied that debate and will certainly give it consideration.

The details are as follows:


—
Royal Navy and Royal Marines
Army
Royal Air Force


Number of ratings and other ranks in receipt of ser vice pensions
61,846*
79,342*
14,603


Number of widows of ratings and other ranks in receipt of ordinary service widows pensions
362*
2,223*
651


 The number of widows of ratings/other ranks who receive no service widows' pensions at all is not known.


* These figures cover cases where the rating/ other rank has or had been commissioned but opted for ratings' rate of pension, this being advantageous.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY

Polaris Submarines

Mr. Wall: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty when the first Polaris-carrying submarine will be laid down, and what is the estimated time it will take to bring such a vessel into service.

Mr. Thorneycroft: I have been asked to reply.
Design work has already started. It is too soon to say when the first submarine will be laid down or in service.

Mr. Wall: Will my right hon. Friend comment on the so-called missile gap? Is not it well within the capability of British shipyards to launch Polaris submarines and put them into commission before the V-bomber force is obsolete?

Mr. Thorneycroft: It is certainly within the capacity of British shipyards to put the Polaris fleet into service and I hope at a reasonably early date. As to the missile gap, I do not accept that there is a gap, although no doubt there will be a period when enemy defence is growing in strength and we shall be doing something about that. I think it will be dealt with in the debate.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: When he was in America did the Minister make inquiries


about what profits American armament manufacturers are likely to make out of the Polaris submarine business?

Mr. Thorneycroft: No. But I was satisfied that there was immense defence profit to this country from going into this project.

Commander Courtney: Is it not a fact that"Dreadnought"was laid down three and a half years ago and that she has not yet dived and that this period is about twice the interval taken by the Americans in similar circumstances? Can he guarantee that the Polaris programme will not be lengthened by such a tremendous amount of time?

Mr. Thorneycroft: In so far as the Royal Navy and the shipyards can provide, I have every reason to believe that we shall get an effective submarine at the earliest possible date.

Mr. Willis: Can the Minister say at what speed it is intended to proceed with this programme? Are we to start with one, two or three submarines? What kind of programme has he in mind?

Mr. Thorneycroft: At this moment the design work has started and that is the first thing. As that starts we can begin to place contracts. At the appropriate moment I shall say something about how the streams of production will start. I was not proposing to say so at the moment.

Mr. Lee: Will the right hon. Gentleman say from what source we shall obtain the rich uranium to power the submarines? Shall we be dependent on American supplies?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I think that question has been answered. If the right hon. Gentleman will put down a Question about uranium I will see that it is answered.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

T.A. Forces Association, Glamorgan

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the public protest made by the Glamorgan Territorial Army Forces Association concerning the dwellings in

which they have to operate; and what proposals he has for improved accommodation conditions for these men.

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. James Ramsden): I am aware of a report which appeared in the Western Mail on 20th December, 1962. Brigadier Hurford was referring to a few of the married quarters held by the Glamorgan Association for the Regular Army permanent staff attached to the local Territorial Army units, and I regret that the remarks attributed to him in the newspaper were only a partial report and give a wrong impression of the real state of affairs. The Association holds 48 married quarters, and those built since the War are well situated in residential areas and constructed to modern standards; those criticised were built at the turn of the century and are not where we should put them now.

Mr. Thomas: Do I understand that the Minister is expressing satisfaction with the accommodation? If not, can he give an idea how long it will be before the quarters described as "slums" will be put out of operation? Will he make a further statement?

Mr. Ramsden: In the context of the discussion in which the remarks were made reference was being made by the brigadier to the location of these quarters, a few of which are in areas a good deal less fashionable than those in which we build modern quarters. With regard to the Glamorgan association and other associations throughout the country, the modernising and bringing up to date of their quarters is entirely satisfactory.

Service Widows' Pensions

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for War how much pension an Army captain's widow with one child who lost her husband on 3rd November, 1958, receives; and how much she would receive if her husband had retired on the 1962 Code and died today, assuming in both cases that the widow is 50 years old and the husband had completed maximum service.

Mr. Ramsden: £183 18s. 0d. a year and £322 4s. 0d. a year respectively.

Mr. Johnson: Does my hon. Friend think it right or fair that one of two such widows, both of the same age and


both of whose husbands had the same kind of service, should receive a pension nearly twice as big as that of the other widow?

Mr. Ramsden: It is very difficult to get this question into perspective by She process of question and answer. We had a debate covering all these matters shortly before Christmas. I would refer my hon. Friend to what my right hon. Friend said on this question in his speech during that debate.

Dame Irene Ward: Most unsatisfactory.

Mr. Johnson: Is my hon. Friend aware that what my right hon. Friend said on that occasion was wholly unsatisfactory and that the older widows have not been fairly treated?

Mr. Ramsden: Having gone into this with great care, as my hon. Friends know, I am afraid we still can find no basis on which to distinguish between those who became widows before 1958 and any other category of Service pension.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Pontoon Dock, Aberdeen

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of the complexities mentioned in his letter dated early in 1962 to the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North, relating to the provision of a pontoon dock for Aberdeen, he will now make a statement indicating when the construction of the pontoon dock will commence and how long it will take to complete.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gilmour Leburn): I understand that the Aberdeen Harbour Board still has the matter under consideration.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that this matter has been under consideration far too long? There has been undue delay. Prompt attention to it would go far to solve the unemployment problem in the northeast of Scotland, not only for those who plan the docks, but for those who do the actual work. It would enable

Aberdeen shipbuilding firms to undertake the building of larger ships which are the fashion of today. Will he see that the matter is expedited?

Mr. Leburn: I think the hon. and learned Member understands that this is a matter for the Aberdeen Harbour Board. It is considering it. I understand it is also taking into account the question of building a slipway rather than a pontoon dock.

Firth of Forth (Small Herring)

Mr. Woodburn: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has about the large shoals of small herring coming into the Forth and the numbers being destroyed in the Kincardine Power Station cooling system; and what steps he is taking to safeguard the possibilities of a return of the herring to the Forth.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Brooman-White): There are very few small herring in the Forth at present, but sprats have increased substantially this winter. Recently exceptional numbers of sprats penetrated the protecting screens at the cooling system intake and were destroyed. Over a period, however, losses at the intake have been only a very small percentage of catches of herring and sprats in the Forth and it does not seem that they will materially affect the fishery prospects.

Mr. Woodbum: While the information about herrings seems to be about red herrings in this case, in the case of sprats could the hon. Gentleman take account of the experience at the Portobello Station where there was trouble of this kind caused by mussels blocking up the machinery? Can he see whether this solution can be repeated at Kincardine by reversing the flow in and out?

Mr. Brooman-White: We are conducting further research into the most effective way of developing a protective screen.

Maternity Beds, west Fife

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the concern in West Fife due to the continued shortage in the provision of maternity beds; and what steps he intends to take to improve the position.

Mr. Brooman-White: Yes, Sir; the South-Eastern Regional Hospital Board intends to provide thirty additional beds at the Dunfermline Maternity Hospital as soon as its resources permit, but other schemes now in hand or being planned for Fife must take priority.

Mr. Hamilton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that does not get us very far? Can he tell the House how soon this extra provision will be made? Can he say whether there will be any provision in the Glenrothes area of the constituency because in some cases people are having to travel many miles where there are inadequate transport facilities and this is causing very great hardship?

Mr. Brooman-White: I know that local concern is felt about this, but I cannot say anything further about the date because it is a matter for the regional hospital board to fix priorities.

Road Improvements

Mrs. Hart: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the capital expenditure involved in projects for road improvements in Scotland for which the necessary plans are complete or at an advanced stage, but which are awaiting the allocation of resources, including both direct Government expenditure and grants to local authorities.

Mr. Leburn: For trunk road schemes for which necessary plans are complete or at an advanced stage, £8½ million; of these I expect to authorise schemes amounting to about £5½ million in the next six months. I regret that comparable information is not available in respect of classified roads.

Mrs. Hart: Is it not clear from the figures which the Under-Secretary has given that the expenditure involved is capable of yielding a large amount of employment in Scotland? Would it not therefore be of tremendous assistance in the present unemployment crisis in Scotland if he were to speed the process of giving final approvals and consider extending the programme as it stands at the moment?

Mr. Leburn: It is for this very reason that I expect to authorise the expenditure of £5½ million in the next six months.

Regional Hospital Boards (Capital Expenditure)

Mrs. Hart: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total capital expenditure involved in plans submitted to him by regional hospital boards which have not yet been given final approval.

Mr. Brooman-White: The major projects in the ten-year Hospital Plan are naturally at various stages of preparation, but none is being held up for final approval.

Mrs. Hart: Is the Under-Secretary aware that, although none may be held up at the moment for final approval, the regional hospital boards have a number of projects with which they are anxious to proceed and which are urgently needed? If a global sum were allocated by the Government for the purpose of expanding expenditure of this kind on the service, that would make a tremendous contribution in the unemployment crisis. Will he ask the Secretary of State to give consideration to this?

Mr. Brooman-White: The hon. Lady will be aware that additional expenditure on smaller capital works in areas with high unemployment has been authorised. She will also be aware of the steadily expanding expenditure on major programmes in the ten years hospital capital development plan.

Mr. McInnes: Will the hon. Gentleman indicate the total capital expenditure involved in the nine projects to which he referred?

Mr. Brooman-White: It varies between the boards' areas and in respect of the very differing priorities and needs, but the hon. Member will know that the programme for Scotland as a whole has expanded from £4 million last year to £5 million this year and £6·8 million for next year.

Mr. Ross: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we have been asking for and hoping to get an expanded programme of public works in view of the present unemployment situation? Is there any indication from the Government that we shall get that? Is he taking the opportunity of asking the Chancellor to help us in relation to burdens on local


authorities which might crop up and impede such a programme?

Mr. Brooman-White: I have referred to what has already been done. I cannot add to that at present.

Toothill Report

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he now expects to make his final observations on the recommendations contained in the Toothill Report.

Mr. Leburn: The Toothill Report includes a number of recommendations which the Scottish Council itself recognises require further study by it. Others involve other organisations and agencies, including industry itself. Those which concern matters of Government policy have been and are being most actively studied, and many of them are already being acted upon.

Mr. Rankin: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we have been hearing that reply for nearly twelve months now? Does he not realise that this Report has been before us for fifteen months and these recommendations were supposed to help to provide more jobs in Scotland, which needs them badly? Will he say whether or not the Secretary of State believes that to be so? If he does, why is he fiddling over the matter and not coming to a quicker decision in view of the urgency of the time in which we live?

Mr. Leburn: As I said in answer to the Question, which is about my right hon. Friend's final observations, studies by people other than the Government are here involved.

Mr. Hoy: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, while we welcome the Toothill proposals, we would welcome the reply of the Government? Does he realise that any failure or slowness in replying to the Toothill proposals does not absolve the Government from taking action of their own and that is what we want them to do?

Mr. Leburn: The Government have already made observations on the Toothill Report and I am sure the hon. Member knows about them.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF AVIATION

Surplus Britannia Aircraft (China)

Sir C. Osborne: asked the Secretary of State for Air how many surplus Britannia aircraft the Chinese Government have asked to purchase and at what price; and if he will make a statement on the negotiations.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation (Mr. Neil Marten): I have been asked to reply. At the invitation of B.O.A.C. a party of Chinese technicians in this country were recently shown some Britannia aircraft which belong to 'the Corporation and are surplus to their current requirements. The Chinese have not so far made any offer to buy these aircraft.

Sir C. Osborne: Will my hon. Friend say how many there were of these machines, what they have cost us and whether there has been any pressure from American interests to prevent us from selling these machines which we ourselves do not need?

Mr. Marten: I am not aware of any pressure from the Americans. If my hon. Friend cares to put down a Question about the precise numbers, I will answer it.

Sir C. Osborne: On a point of order. The Question asks the Minister how many of these machines there were, and he has not answered it. May I ask for an answer?

Mr. Speaker: I cannot make the Minister say how many there were. I cannot make him answer.

WAR PENSIONS, NATIONAL INSURANCE AND INDUSTRIAL INJURIES BENEFITS AND NATIONAL ASSISTANCE

The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. Niall Macpherson): I should like, with permission, Mr. Speaker, to make a statement about improvements in war pensions. National Insurance and industrial injuries benefits and National Assistance.
I am presenting today a Bill to increase benefits and contributions under the National Insurance and Industrial


Injuries Schemes. The Bill will be available in the Vote Office this afternoon together with an explanatory White Paper and a report by the Government Actuary.
It is proposed that the standard National Insurance rates of unemployment and sickness benefit and flat-rate retirement pensions should be increased by 10s. a week for a single person from 57s. 6d. to 67s. 6d. and by 16s. 6d. for a married couple to £5 9s. Allowances for children will be increased by 2s. 6d. a week. These increases mean that the rate for a man and wife with three children will be £8 11s. including family allowances.
The standard rate of widow's pension will also be raised to 67s. 6d. a week. The widowed mother will have her personal benefit increased to 67s. 6d. a week and the allowance for each of her children will be increased by 5s., thus providing allowances of 30s. a week for the first child and of 22s. in addition to family allowances for each other child. In other words, the preference which in recent years the Government have accorded widowed mothers as a class is being extended.
The Bill also provides that a widowed mother in work will always keep at least 26s. of her personal benefit under the earnings rule. This amount will be the difference between benefit for a single person and that for a dependent wife. Taken together with the regulations which I have submitted to the National Insurance Advisory Committee fox raising the earnings limits for widowed mothers from £5 to £6, this represents a substantial improvement for widowed mothers in work.
Under the Industrial Injuries Scheme the standard rate of injury benefit and of the 100 per cent. disablement pension will be increased from 97s. 6d. to £5 15s. a week. The supplementary allowances will also be increased, and the widow's pension of 64s. will become 75s. a week.
I turn now to the timetable. As the House knows, the raising of pensions is a massive and complex task, but I hope that the new rates will operate from the week beginning 27th May. If the Bill is passed into law by the end of February, as I hope with the co-operation of the House it will be, it is my aim excep-

tionally to bring in the new higher rates of unemployment and sickness benefit together with injury benefit as from 7th March.
The extra cost in the first full year of the higher rates of pensions and benefits will add about £212 million to expenditure from the two Insurance Funds. In contributory schemes improved benefits involve increased contributions. The minimum total contribution paid by the employed man will be increased from 10s. 7d. to l1s. 8d, and that paid by his employer from 8s. 7d. to 9s. 8d. As to the graduated part of the scheme, the maximum earnings on which contributions are charged will be raised from the present £15 to £18 a week, and the man earning £18 a week or more in the graduated scheme will pay 19s. 4d. a week in all as compared with 15s. 8d. at present, and the employer 17s. 4d. as compared with 13s. 8d. The extra graduated contributions will, of course, count for extra graduated pension. The total contribution for the employed man contracted out of the graduated scheme will go up from 12s. 2d. to 14s. 1d. and that for his employer from 9s. 10d. to 12s. 1d. There will be corresponding increases in other contribution rates. The contribution changes will operate from the beginning of June.
As regards National Assistance, although the rates were raised as recently as last September, I am glad to be able to tell the House that the National Assistance Board intend to make proposals for some further increase in them to come into effect at the end of May, at the same time as the increases in National Insurance pensions, so as to improve again the standard of living of the poorest members of the community.
Meantime, the Bill I am presenting today includes a temporary provision which will have the effect of ensuring that a person whose unemployment or sickness benefit is supplemented by National Assistance will not get less advantage from the benefit increase in March than he would if the Board's proposals were in operation at the time.
So much for the Bill. Now war pensions, which are a matter for the Royal Warrants. Increases will be made in the basic rate of pension for 100 per cent. disablement from 97s. 6d. to


£5 15s. The standard rate of pension for war widows will be raised from 76s. to 90s., with appropriate increases in the rates for their children. There will also be increases in the allowances for constant attendance, unemploy-ability and lowered standard of occupation and in the maximum rent allowance payable to war widows with children. I will circulate a list of all the principal changes in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The main new rates will come into operation in the week beginning 27th May. The additional cost to the Exchequer on war pensions will be £15 million in the first full year.

Mr. Houghton: Does the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that these proposals are being made much later than they should have been made? In view of the bitter winter which we are going through, does he realise how cruel this delay has been? Does he recall that on 26th November we on these benches pressed the Government for an immediate and substantial advance upon the whole front of social security benefits and that the right hon. Gentleman then pleaded that it could not be done before Christmas? Why have the Government left it until now when they had all summer to think about it and October in which to promise it? The statement is being made in January, taking effect over the main field of retirement pensions on 27th May.
May I ask him whether, in a sentence or two, he will throw a little light on the criteria which he has taken for proposing increases of 10s. for single persons and 16s. 6d. for married couples? We on this side of the House had hoped for at least 15s. a week for a single person and 20s. a week for a married couple. That would have given only £3 12s. 6d. for a single person and £5 12s. 6d. for a married couple. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that £5 12s. 6d. for a married couple is still only one-third of the average adult earnings at present?
Further, has the right hon. Gentleman considered, in connection with sickness and unemployment benefits, departing from the principle of flat-rate benefits and introducing wage-related sickness and unemployment benefits in keeping with tine principle of the graduated scheme? While the flat-rate increases

might be an interim measure, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the prospect of introducing a wage-related scheme later?
Will the right hon. Gentleman—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The right, hon. Gentleman has made a statement covering a wide field of social benefits, and we are entitled in advance of the Bill to ask him a few questions about it. Will the right hon. Gentleman give fresh consideration to the abolition of the earnings rule for widowed mothers? Why does he retain this intricate arrangement for a small body of pensioners to whom we should like to give the maximum posible benefit?
Turning to the effective date for retirement pensions, can the right hon. Gentleman offer any hope at all of shortening the timetable? This, of course, is an added reason for introducing proposals early if they are to take effect from the date at which they would be appropriate. The date 27th May is a long time from now, and there might be bitter weather and grave hardship before that time arrives.
We welcome the promise that the National Assistance Board will introduce additional proposals for National Assistance scales. We also welcome the additions to industrial injury and war disability pensions. If the right hon. Gentleman can briefly answer those points it may assist us—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman had plenty of time to give consideration to what he is doing and I am sure that he can give an answer to these questions in a few sentences.

Mr. Macpherson: The hon. Gentleman said, first, that these proposals are being introduced later than they should have been. I would point out to him that the interval since the last increase has been as short as any other interval since the tidying up operation of 1952.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman asked what are the criteria for the 10s. and the 16s. 6d. increases for a single person and for a married couple. He said that he had hoped for increases of 15s. and 20s. The increase of 10s. compares with 3s. 6d. required by the rise in prices since April, 1961, to last month, and the rise in earnings over the two years to October, 1962, would justify only a little over 5s. In other words, these increases


represent practically three times the rise in the cost of living since the last increase and practically twice the rise in earnings since then.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether we have considered wage-related benefits. Of course we have considered them, but surely it is better in the present circumstances to help all? That is what we are doing. We are introducing a Bill which will give assistance to all beneficiaries.
The hon. Gentleman then asked about the earnings rule for widowed mothers. We think that there it is better to do what we are doing and, indeed, as the National Insurance Advisory Committee recommended us to do, to raise the extra benefit that is given per child, which will assist all widowed mothers rather than assisting a relatively small proportion of them by abolishing the earnings rule.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether we could hasten the effective date. The House will be aware that on previous occasions effective dates for pensions have been 20 weeks, 24 weeks, 21 weeks, 12 weeks, and 22 weeks after increases have been announced. On this occasion we have made it at 18 weeks and that has only once been bettered.

Mr. Kenton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this further display of practical social justice on the part of the Government will be warmly received by the mass of the people, whatever opinions may be held on the benches opposite about his proposals? Does it follow from what my right hon. Friend has said about the amount of the increases compared with the increases which have taken place in the cost of living since the previous Bill that those who are to benefit under the Bill will, in fact, be getting an increased share of increasing national prosperity?

Mr. Macpherson: I am much obliged to my right hon. Friend. I certainly agree that it follows from what I have said that the beneficiaries will be getting an increased share in the national prosperity.

Mrs. Slater: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the mass of the people will remember that it was his Government Who said only a few months ago that there was no need for a rise

in the basic pensions and basic benefits? [An HON. MEMBER: "What about your Government? "] We are talking about 1963 and not 1951.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, even though this increase will be a little more than the supposed cost of living, at present the cost of living is rising so much and so many people acre getting so little share of the national cake that they will not relate it and think that it is fair justice?
Further, could not the right hon. Gentleman examine the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), that the whole of the earnings rule could be abolished for widows, who need the money at that time? Finally, has he made any provision to do anything for the forgotten 10s. widows?

Mr. Macpherson: The hon. Lady said that on a previous occasion we said that an increase was not needed. What we have always said is that the value of the pension was higher than it had been at any time before the previous increase. That is so still.
It is a fact that this increase will give an additional share of the national cake to the pensioner.
I think that I have already answered the point about the earnings rule for widows in reply to the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton).

Lord Balniel: Whilst not commenting at all on the merits of an overall flat-rate benefit system, is my right hon. Friend aware that the scale of these increases, which apparently far outstrips the rise in the cost of living and the rise in average earnings, will be very welcome indeed to the country as a whole? Is he aware, in particular, that the emphasis on widowed mothers will be very welcome, and can he say what effect this is likely to have on the contracting-out schemes?

Mr. Macpherson: I am much obliged for what my noble Friend has said. The effect on the contracting-out schemes will be that all those employers who will not be providing the new equivalent pension benefit consequent upon the raising of the maximum of the span from £15 to £18 will have to bring their schemes into line with that requirement.

Mr. H. Hynd: Will the Minister first answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member far Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater) about the 10s. widows? Can he say whether any improvements that have been announced today will be deducted from recipients of National Assistance?

Mr. Macpherson: I apologise to the hon. Lady. I omitted to answer her question. No; the present proposals make no provision for the 10s. windows, nor have any previous proposals made provision for them. This, as is generally recognised, is a reserved right resulting from a previous scheme which has now been replaced.
It always is the case that if National Insurance benefits rise by more than National Assistance benefits there is an adjustment between the two.

Mr. Eden: Whilst the whole House must welcome any step taken to improve the lot of retired people and to make it easier for them, is my right hon. Friend aware that many would have wished to have seen us take this opportunity of departing from a flat-rate basis? What consideration was given to trying to introduce a scheme involving a greater degree of selectivity? Could my right hon. Friend also make clear exactly what the proposed increases in retirement pension will cost the country as a whole, recognising that a substantial amount of this has to come from direct taxation?

Mr. Macpherson: I recognise my hon. Friend's views on this and I know that they are shared by many others. The way in which we approached this was that there were claims from several groups for special consideration. We felt that anything that was given to one group would be bound to be at the expense of the other groups. We therefore felt that it was better, at least on this occasion, to stick to the flat-rate increases.
My hon. Friend also asked what the additional cost of pensions will be. The cost will go up from about £800 million a year at the present time to just short of £960 million in a full year.

Mr. Monslow: As well as giving this prelude to a General Election, can the right hon. Gentleman give us the approximate date of the election?

Dame Irene Ward: While I welcome the proposals put forward by my right

hon. Friend, and thank him for them, may I ask when we can expect the Government to do some real thinking about giving what is available to those who have the smallest incomes rather than always continuing on the same plan of a flat-rate increase? Is he aware that the Conservative Party has thought very deeply about this for some considerable time and that I was hoping that we might now have got to a position where we might have taken a decision?
With regard to the subject of widowed mothers and what he has said, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware that a vast number of anomalies remain to be corrected? Will he tell us when the Government will think about correcting those anomalies? We are having to wait too long for a new policy. What I have said does not, however, detract in any way from my pleasure that these announcements have been made.

Mr. Macpherson: Again, I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I know her views, and that she would like to see, as she puts it, what is available confined to those who need it most. I can assure her that the Government are continuing to think about this matter, just as she is doing.

Dame Irene Ward: They are taking too long.

Mr. Macpherson: On the question of anomalies, I am afraid that any scheme of this kind will always have anomalies, but we are progressively ironing them out. I think it is right, however, that we should stick to the preference that is given to war widows and industrial injuries widows.

Miss Herbison: The right hon. Gentleman has said that the extra cost of the benefits will add about £212 million to the expenditure of the two insurance funds. We should like to know how much of that extra cost will be met by the contributions of employees and the contributions of employers and how much under the scheme the Government are again to filch from the graduated contributions which are paid by the workers.

Mr. Macpherson: The extra cost in respect of the Industrial Injuries Scheme will be about £11 million. The contribution that will be made from the


graduated pensions scheme is about £44 million and the contribution from the Exchequer will be about £28 million. If right hon. and hon. Gentlemen will not mind doing that sum, they will find the other figure, which escapes me at the moment.

Miss Herbison: Shocking.

Mr. Speaker: That appears to show yet again the peril of trying to debate these matters without a Question before us.

Miss Herbison: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With respect, I should like to point out that I had no intention of debating this matter, but the Minister was asked for a figure which I, and, I am sure, every hon. Member on both sides of the House, would have expected him to have without requiring to obtain information from the Officials' Box. Surely, in courtesy, the Minister ought to give that figure to the House.

PRINCIPAL CHANGES IN WAR PENSIONS



Present rate
Proposed rate


Disablement pensions (100 per cent. assessment):—




ex-private or equivalent
97s. 6d. a week
115s. a week


ex-non-commissioned officers
Increase of 17s. 6d. a week


ex-officers
Increase of £46 a year


ex-regular officers—disablement addition
Increase of £46 a year


The amounts of weekly allowances and terminal gratuities for assessments of less than 20 per cent. will also be increased proportionately.




Constant attendance allowance
20s. a week
25s. a week



30s. a week
37s. 6d. a week


Normal maximum
40s. a week
50s. a week



60s. a week
75s. a week


Exceptional maximum
80s. a week
100s. a week


Unemployability supplement
63s. a week
74s. a week


The allowances payable with this supplement (and with treatment allowances) will also be increased:—




Allowance for wife or other adult dependant
35s. a week
41s. 6d. a week


Allowance for first child
17s. 6d. a week
20s. a week


Allowance for other children
9s. 6d. a week
12s. a week


Allowance for lowered standard of occupation
Up to 39s. a week
Up to 46s. a week


Widows' pensions:—




Widows of ex-privates or equivalent
76s. a week
90s. a week


Widows of ex-non-commissioned officers
Increase of 14s. a week


Widows of ex-officers
Increase of £37 a year


Allowance for each child:—




Other ranks
29s. a week
34s. a week


Officers
£83 10s. a year
£96 10s. a year


Rent allowance for widows with children
Up to 29s. a week
Up to 34s. a week


Pensions for unmarried dependants who lived as wives of men now deceased:—




Other ranks
68s. 6d. a week
82s. 6d. a week


Officers
£203 a year
£240 a year


Orphans' pensions:—




Other ranks:—




Under 15 years
34s. 6d. a week
40s. 6d. a week


15 years or over
46s. a week
54s. a week


Officers:—




Up to 18 years
£128 10s. a year
£149 10s. a year


Adult orphan incapable of self-support
57s. 6d. a week
67s. 6d. a week

Mr. Speaker: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is ready to give his figure now, but if he is I will let him give it.

Mr. Macpherson: It was a question of making a calculation in my mind. The total income for the Insurance Fund will be £206 million. As I said, the contracted out will contribute £44 million, and the contribution from the Exchequer will be £28 million. I make it that £136 million—no, £134 million—will be contributed by the contributors.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: The Chair has a very difficult task on these occasions. We really cannot debate these matters on statements. We have already spent about 26 minutes on this matter. I take the view that we must go on.

Following is the list:

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS

Industry (Training and Retraining)

Mr. Proudfoot: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 1st February, I shall call attention to the need for training and retraining in industry, and move a Resolution.

Oil and Gas, North Sea (Prospecting Licences)

Mr. Doughty: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 1st February, I shall call attention to the need for the speedy issue of licences for prospecting for and obtaining oil and natural gas in the North Sea, and move a Resolution.

Regional Town Planning

Mr. Matthews: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 1st February, I shall call attention to the study of town planning on a regional basis, and move a Resolution.

COMPLAINT OF PRIVILEGE

Sir Norman Hulbert: Mir. Speaker, I desire to raise a matter of Privilege for your consideration.
On Saturday, 19th January, at approximately 10.45 p.m. the British Broadcasting Corporation televised a feature programme entitled "That Was The Week That Was". It would appear to bear very little resemblance to any particular week. It was introduced by a Mr. David Frost, who proceeded to name 13 right hon. and hon. Members—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"]—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the House will allow me to hear this, because I have to be able to hear it.

Sir N. Hulbert: It was said that they had not properly carried out their Parliamentary duties. I have here a full transcript of the broadcast. It is lengthy, and I will summarise it.
I think that I can best illustrate the tenor of the remarks of Mr. Frost by quoting what was said about my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) and the hon. and

highly respected Member for Liverpool, Scotland (Mr. Logan). This is it:
Two of them are very old men, 88-year-old Sir Winston Churchill and 91-year-old David Logan, and old men forget; they even forget the way to Westminster.
Mr. Frost then referred to the right hon. Member for Popular (Mr. Key) and the hon. Members for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Moyle), Norwich, North (Mr. Paton) and Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Fortran), my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate (Sir B. Baxter)—about whom a third-form joke was made—the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Oswald), my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, South (Mr. H. Steward), the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Mr. Moody), and for my hon. and Gallant Friend the Member for New Forest (Sir O. Crosthwaite-Eyre) there was projected on to the screen a picture of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), and to myself.
Offensive remarks were made about how long it takes to mention hon. Member's names and there was also a remark made about an hon. Member on this side of the House and a dog. As I said, this broadcast did not confine its attention to any one section in the House and, having checked with one or two hon. Members concerned—and this applies to me personally—the remarks were in many cases completely inaccurate.
There was, finally, a slighting reference to yourself, Mr. Speaker, for it was stated that the B.B.C. would be very pleased to supply you with the photographs of the hon. Members referred to—the inference being that you yourself were unable to recognise them—which would appear rather unfair on you, as they would, presumably, include that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford.
I submit that this performance—if one can call it so—-was not only an unwarranted attack on the hon. Members I have mentioned, but that certain suggestions Which were made were really holding up the House of Commons to ridicule. I have with me a transcript of this broadcast and I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to consider it and, after consideration, say whether or not you think I have made out a prima faciecase of


breach of Privilege, or whether, in your view, Che matter should be dealt with with the contempt it deserves.

Mr. R. T. Paget: Since my features were used to illustrate in a most libellous way observations on an hon. Member opposite, may I say that I have communicated with the B.B.C. to tell the Corporation that I will forgive that libel on myself since it took part in such a delightful and amusing programme.

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that on this issue the threats by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) to the B.B.C. are matters for my concern.
I am obliged to the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Sir N. Huilbect) for letting me have the script. I will consider his complaint and rule upon it tomorrow.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Further to the point raised by the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Sir N. Hulbert), may I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether it would be possible to include in your Ruling, after you have had an opportunity of considering it, the cognate question, namely, whether it would be a breach of Privilege on the part of this admirable programme to include this incident in its programme next week?

Mr. Speaker: My powers in the matter do not extend to a cognate question of such a kind.

BILLS PRESENTED

NATIONAL INSURANCE

Bill to increase ungraduated contributions and benefits under the National

Insurance Acts 1946 to 1961, and contributions and benefits under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Acts, 1946 to 1961, to modify, in connection with the increase of any such benefits, the method of computing national assistance grants for any period before all the increases have taken effect, to modify the widowed mother's allowance under the National Insurance Act, 1946, to amend Section 24 (1) of the National Insurance Act, 1946, as respects conditions for payment of benefits under that section, to alter graduated contributions and benefits under the National Insurance Act, 1959, by enlarging the amount of pay taken into account in fixing contributions and to amend that Act of 1959 as respects non-participating employments; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, presented by Mr. Niall Mac-pherson; supported by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Iain Macleod, Mr. John Hare, Mr. Boyd-Carpenter, Mrs. Margaret Thatcher, and Lieut.-Commander Maydon; read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 56.]

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT, 1948 (AMENDMENT)

Bill to enable a local authority to contribute towards the expenses of bodies carrying on activities outside its area, presented by Mr. Anthony Kershaw; supported by Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth, Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Arthur Holt, Mr. Robert Mathew, Mr. George Thomas, Mr. Arthur Skeffington, Lord Balniel, and Mr. John M. Temple; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 8th February, and to be printed. [Bill 55.]

TANGANYIKA (GIFT OF A SPEAKER'S CHAIR)

4.7 p.m.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Iain Macleod): I beg to move,
That Sir Richard Thompson, Dame Irene Ward, Mr. Bellenger and Mr. George Lawson have leave of absence to present, on behalf of this House, a Speaker's Chair to the House of Representatives of Tanganyika.
This delegation has been arranged in consultation with you, Mr. Speaker. It will be accompanied by Mr. K. R. Mackenzie, Clerk of Public Bills, and I am sure that we all wish our colleagues, as, indeed, they are bound to have, a very pleasant visit to a very pleasant country.

Question put and agreed to.

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION AND INCITEMENT

4.8 p.m.

Mr. Fenner Brockway: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make it an offence to discriminate to the detriment of any person on the grounds of colour, race or religion in the United Kingdom, and to incite publicly contempt or hatred of any person or persons because of their colour, race or religion.
I want to acknowledge that for a fleeting moment yesterday, while we were listening to the tributes to Hugh Gaitskell, I considered postponing the introduction of this Motion today. I did so because I have now introduced it for nine successive years and it may be regarded as a hardy annual. But it was only for a fleeting moment, because those of us who are associated with the Bill do not regard it as a routine matter. We regard it as going to the very depths of human relationships.
The principle of the Bill, in our view, is imperative for human harmony in Britain and the world. The Measure is divided into three parts: the first deals with discrimination in public places, the second discrimination in leases for accommodation and the third incitement of racial hatred or contempt. The proposals in the first part are very moderate. They distinguish between personal and public relationships. We may deplore it, but the State has no right to impose on any individual an association repugnant by mind or instinct. That is in the realm of the individual, but if

we believe that racial or religious discrimination is a denial of the essence of the human family and community living, then we should say at least that in public places, particularly when operating under public licence, differentiation should be made an offence in law.
My Bill would apply to common lodging houses, hotels, places for the sale of food and drink to the public, and places of public entertainment or recreation. It has been urged before that there is no need to include hotels. It has been argued that the present law requiring the provision of accommodation to all still applies, but it does not apply to any applicants to hotels who are not travellers.
In addition, I want to draw attention to the inclusion of lodging houses, because this provision might lead to a misapprehension. The advertisements that appear in local newspapers saying, in the case of private lodgings, "no coloureds need apply", probably has a worse effect than anything in this sphere, but the Bill would not apply to private lodgings because we recognise that an Englishwoman's home is her castle.
It has sometimes been argued that there is no need fox my proposed Bill. If any hon. Member argues that he must have a very different kind of correspondence from that which I receive, which shows that there is need of the Bill in relation to hotels and public houses, and to dance halls, where discrimination is particularly practised. That is the first part of the Bill.
The second part of the Bill would apply to the refusal of leases for accommodation on grounds of race or of colour. My correspondence shows that this very frequently occurs. I get letters giving instances in which a coloured man has telephoned an estate agent and has been offered accommodation immediately, but when he has spelt his name and it is African, or when he has appeared at the estate agent's office, he has been refused that accommodation. We had the disgraceful occurrence recently when a leading officer at an embassy in London tried for five weeks to find accommodation here, was promised it immediately, but when it was discovered that he was a coloured person the accommodation, even to an embassy official, was refused.
I want very briefly to answer three arguments that are urged against my Bill. The first is that we shall rid this country of racial discrimination by education rather than by legislation. It is agreed that education must be the primary factor, but surely a lead can be given by legislation and so contribute to education.
Secondly, it is urged that our Statute law makes no reference to race, and that to have a law addressed to it would be a recognition of race. The Minister has urged that argument. One might as well say that a law against murder is a recognition of murder. Racial discrimination is admittedly a social evil with disastrous effects on the community; we should recognise that fact by making it illegal.
Thirdly, it is said that legislation has not always succeeded—again, the argument of the right hon. Gentleman. Nobody who has been to America during recent years can doubt the salutary effect of the laws of many States there, despite isolated events. This legislation is applied in a number of British Colonies, with a liberating effect. Is the centre of the Commonwealth to lag behind the Commonwealth itself?
The third part of the Bill would make illegal incitement of hatred or contempt on grounds of race, colour or religion, whether by speech, writing, illustration or printing. This has become urgent because of a resurgence of Fascist propaganda in our country. I believe in the freedoms of speech and of Press. I would not ban meetings except when social disorder would occur, or when they were for the deliberate purpose of inciting hatred or contempt of race or religion. I would not ban a newspaper. But just as it is an offence to slander an individual, so it should be an offence to slander a whole race, the social consequences of which may be far more serious than those of personal slander.
A Bill to amend the Public Order Act has already been introduced. My Bill goes further, but I welcome that Measure which has come from the other side of the House. I delayed the introduction of this Motion in order to give the other the first opportunity. I hope that one or other, in so far as it refers to the third part of my proposed Bill, will be passed.
This is the ninth time that I have introduced such a Bill, but always with

greater encouragement; every time the support grows. On this occasion we have the support of the Churches, the National Council of Women, educational organisations, the National Council of Civil Liberties, the Jewish community, the Labour movement, the Liberal Party, Conservative clubs at universities, and many Conservative Members.
On previous occasions the House has agreed to the First Reading and then a group of hon. Members has obstructed the Bill at further stages. I do not ask the House to accept every Clause, but I do ask it to accept the principle that the law of our land should make public racial discrimination and incitement an offence. And I challenge those who oppose that principle to divide against this Motion today. Let them have the courage to do that openly rather than to resort to methods of obstruction at a later stage. If it is logical to give leave today, I ask that they shall not oppose Opportunity for discussion at later stages. Otherwise, let them try to defeat the Bill today—I challenge them to do so.
If that challenge is not taken up, I ask the Government to provide facilities for a Bill that has been given its First Reading more often than any Bill that has ever been introduced into this House. It embodies a principle necessary for the good of the nation and of the world, and I have no doubt that public opinion supports it. I have no doubt that the majority in the House supports it. I hope that a Division will be challenged, so that we may know that that is so.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Fenner Brockway, Mr. James Griffiths, Mr. A. Creech Jones, Mr. Grimond, Sir Godfrey Nicholson, Mr. Arthur Tiley, Mr. Anthony Greenwood, Mr. Julian Critchley, Mr. Leslie Hale, Sir Leslie Plummer, Mrs. Barbara Castle, and Mr. Eric Lubbock.

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION AND INCITEMENT

Bill to make it an offence to discriminate to the detriment of any person on the grounds of colour, race or religion in the United Kingdom, and to incite publicly contempt or hatred of any person or persons because of their colour, race or religion, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 8th February, and to be printed. [Bill 57.]

Orders of the Day — LONDON GOVERNMENT [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision with respect to local government and the functions of local authorities in the metropolitan area, it is expedient to authorise—

(a)the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—

(i) of any expenses incurred by any Minister under that Act; and
(ii) of any increase attributable to the provisions of that Act in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under any other enactment;

(b) the payment into the Exchequer of any sums received by any Minister under that Act;

and in this Resolution the expression "Minister" includes the Board of Trade.

Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution.

4.20 p.m.

Mr. Michael Stewart: I wish to say only a few words on this matter. When we were dealing with the Money Resolution in Committee, I asked the Government what would be its effect on certain Amendments which hon. Members might wish to move in Committee. I had in mind particularly Amendments which might make it possible for membership of the Greater London Council to be a salaried post, Amendments which would make it possible for help to be given to the truncated counties of Essex, Kent and Surrey at the expense of the Exchequer rather than at the expense of the inhabitants of Greater London, and Amendments which might make it possible for the Government to help in any compensation that it might be appropriate to pay to the staff of the London County Council or other bodies affected by the Bill.
I asked whether Amendments of that kind would be in order under the Money Resolution as drafted. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing

and Local Government was not able to give me a firm reply. I make no complaint about that, because the exact significance of a Money Resolution is always a difficult and complex matter. Since then the Minister has been kind enough to communicate with me about it.

I want now to state what I believe the position to be and what I hope the Government may be able to confirm. I believe it to be as follows: that it is not possible, of course, for the Government to give firm advance rulings on something which is within the province of the Chair; that the Government cannot positively say that this, that or the other Amendment will be in order, but they can say that they have so drafted the Money Resolution than it is their intention that such Amendments should be in order and that to the best of their belief such Amendments would be in order with the Money Resolution drafted as it is.

I understand the position today to be that the Money Resolution is, in the Government's view, so drafted that Amendments dealing with the three topics I have mentioned—salaries for members of the Greater London Council, Exchequer payments to the truncated counties, and Exchequer assistance for compensation to staff are matters which could properly be discussed by means of Amendments in Committee. They are matters in which a great many hon. Members are interested and I hope that the Government will be able to confirm that the position is as I have described it.

4.23 p.m.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Sir Keith Joseph): Subject always to the discretion of the Chair, I can confirm that the advice I am given is that these three subjects are covered within the Money Resolution and, therefore, can be debated.

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution:—

The House divided: Ayes 240, Noes 185.

Division No. 23.]
AYES
[4.25 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Balniel, Lord
Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald


Allan, Robert (Partington, S.)
Barter, John
Bidgood, John C.


Allason, James
Batsford, Brian
Bitten, John


Atkins, Humphrey
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Biggs-Davison, John


Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel




Bishop, F. P.
Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Black, Sir Cyrll
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythneshawe)
Partridge, E.


Bossom, Hon. Clive
Hirst, Geoffrey
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Bourne-Arton, A.
Hocking, Philip N.
Peel, John


Box, Donald
Holland, Philip
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Braine, Bernard
Hollingworth, John
Pilkington, Sir Richard


Brewis, John
Hopkins, Alan
Pitman, Sir James


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.Col. Sir Walter
Hornby, R. P.
Pott, Percivall


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)
Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)


Bryan, Paul
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John


Buck, Antony
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Bullard, Denys
Hughes-Young, Michael
Pym, Francis


Burden, F. A.
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Ramsden, James


Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Rawlinson, Sir Peter


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
James, David
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Rees, Hugh


Cary, Sir Robert
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Renton, Rt. Hon. David


Channon, H. P. G.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Chataway, Christopher
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Roots, William


Chichester-Clark, R.
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S)
Ropner, Col. Leonard


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith
St. Clair, M.


Clarke, Brig. Terence(Portsmth, W.)
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Scott-Hopkins, James


Cleaver, Leonard
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Sharples, Richard


Cooke, Robert
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Shaw, M.


Cooper, A. E.
Kershaw, Anthony
Shepherd, William


Cordeaux, Lt-Col. J. K.
Kimball, Marcus
Skeet, T. H. H.



Kirk, Peter
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Corfield, F. V.
Kitson, Timothy
Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher


Costain, A. P.
Lagden, Godfrey
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Coulson, Michael
Lambton, Viscount
Speir, Rupert


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Stevens, Geoffrey


Crawley, Aidan
Leburn, Gilmour
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Stodart, J. A.


Cunningham, Knox
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Studholme, Sir Henry


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lilley, F. J. P.
Summers, Sir Spencer


Dance, James
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Litchfield, Capt. John
Teeling, Sir William


Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.
Longbottom, Charles
Temple, John M.


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Longden, Gilbert
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Drayson, G. B.
Loveys, Walter H.
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Duncan, Sir James
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)


Eden, John
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
MacArthur, Ian
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter


Elliott, R.W. (Nwcastle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute&amp;N. Ayrs)
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, w.)


Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Farey-Jones, F. W.
McMaster, Stanley R.
Turner, Colin


Fell, Anthony
Maddan, Martin
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Fisher, Nigel
Maginnis, John E.
Tweedsmuir, Lady.


Foster, John
Markham, Major Sir Frank
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Marlowe, Anthony
Vane, W. M. F.


Gammans, Lady
Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Gardner, Edward
Marshall, Douglas
Vickers, Miss Joan


Gibson-Watt, David




Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Marten, Neil
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Glover, Sir Douglas
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Walder, David


Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Walker, Peter


Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Mawby, Ray
Wall, Patrick


Goodhew, Victor
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Ward, Dame Irene


Gough, Frederick
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Webster, David


Grant-Ferris, R.
Mills, Stratton
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Green, Alan
Montgomery, Fergus
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Gresham Cooke, R.
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Gurden, Harold
Morgan, William
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Morrison, John
Wise, A. R.


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Woodhouse, C. M.


Harvey, Sir Arthur vere(Macclesf'd)
Neave, Alrey
Woodnutt, Mark


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Woollam, John


Hastings, Stephen
Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard
Worsley, Marcus


Hay, John
Osborn, John (Hallam)



Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hendry, Forbes
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Mr. J. E. B. Hill and


Hiley, Joseph
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Mr. McLaren.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central)
Blyton, William


Ainsley, William
Bence, Cyril
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.


Albu, Austen
Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Boyden, James


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Benson, Sir George
Braddock, Mrs. E. M.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Blackburn, F.
Bray, Dr. Jeremy







Brockway, A. Fenner
Hoy, James H.
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Popplewell, Ernest


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Prentice, R. E.


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hunter, A. E.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Callaghan, James
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Probert, Arthur


Carmichael, Nell
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Caetle, Mrs. Barbara
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Rankin, John


Chapman, Donald
Janner, Sir Barnett
Reynolds, G. W.


Cliffe, Michael
Jeger, George
Rhodes, H.


Collick, Percy
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jones, Rt.Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Darling, George
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)


Davies, C. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Ross, William


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Kelley, Richard
Russell, Ronald


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Shinwell. Rt. Hon. E.


Deer, George
King, Dr. Horace
Short, Edward


Dempsey, James
Ledger, Ron
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Diamond, John
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Dodds, John
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Skeffington, Arthur


Driberg, Tom
Lipton, Marcus
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
Loughlin, Charles
Small, William


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Lubbock, Eric
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Snow, Julian


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
McCann, John
Spriggs, Leslie


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
MacColl, James
Steele, Thomas


Fernyhough, E.
McInnes, James
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Fitch, Alan
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Stonehouse, John


Fletcher, Eric
Mackie, John (Enfield, East)
Stones, William


Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
McLeavy, Frank
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)


Forman, J. C.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Swingler, Stephen


Galpern, Sir Myer
Manuel, Archie
Symonds, J. B.


George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)
Mapp, Charles
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Ginsburg, David
Mason, Roy
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Gourlay, Harry
Mayhew, Christopher
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Greenwood, Anthony
Mellish, R. J.
Thornton, Ernest


Grey, Charles
Mendelson, J. J.
Thorpe, Jeremy


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Milian, Bruce
Timmons, John


Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Milne, Edward
Wainwright, Edwin


Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.
Mitchison, G. R.
Warbey, William


Gunter, Ray
Monslow, Walter
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Moody, A. S.
Whitlock, William


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Moyle, Arthur
Wilkins, W. A.


Hannan, William
Neal, Harold
Willey, Frederick


Harper, Joseph
Oram, A. E.
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)


Healey, Denis
Oswald, Thomas
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Herbison, Miss Margaret
Padley, W. E.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Paget, R. T.
Winterbottom, R. E.


Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Hilton, A. V.
Pargiter, G. A.
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Holman, Percy
Parker, John
Zilliacus, K.


Holt, Arthur
Parkin, B. T.



Houghton, Douglas
Pavitt, Laurence
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Mr. Redhead and Mr. Lawson


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Peart, Frederick

LONDON GOVERNMENT BILL

(CLAUSE 1 AND SCHEDULE 1

Considered in Committee.

[Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(LONDON BOROUGHS.)

4.35 p.m.

Mr. Michael Stewart: I beg to move, in page 2, line 9, to leave out "in the case of an outer London borough".
The ellect of this Amendment can be stated simply. The Clause, is it stands at present, provides in subsection (2) that the Minister shall bring the proposed new

London borough into existence by means of what is called an incorporation order. Although they are all to be brought into existence by an incorporation order, a distinction is made between inner London and outer London boroughs, inner London boroughs being those covering areas now covered by the London County Council, and outer London boroughs being all the rest.
The Bill provides that in the case of an outer London borough, and only in such a case, the incorporation order shall make provision for a charter for this new outer London borough which charter
may include with any necessary modifications all or any of the provisions of the charter or any letters patent granted to any existing


borough the whole or part of which falls within the London borough's area.
That is to say, as the Bill now stands—and this is a proposition with which hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will disagree—if a new borough of Wembley and Willesden were to be created, that would be an outer London borough, and the incorporation order would make provision for a charter which may incorporate any of the provisions of any charter, and so forth, which Wembley or Willesden now enjoy. But with regard to an inner London borough—a borough covering an area now in the London County Council—there is to be no such charter.
The purpose of my Amendment is to remove that discrimination, to make certain that the incorporation orders of all the boroughs shall make provision for a charter. It is easy enough to see why the discrimination is in the Bill. It is because inner London boroughs are composed of what are now metropolitan boroughs which have no chanter, which are mere creatures of statute, whereas outer London boroughs, some—indeed, I think all—have a charter or some comparable instrument.
But although this is a distinction in their past, is it right, when it is proposed to create a totally new form of London government, to draw from the very beginning a distinction at least in dignity and possibly in powers as well between two groups of boroughs which are supposed to be in all other respects on an equal footing?
It is not a legitimate objection to my Amendment to say that if the Minister in the incorporation order for an inner London borough makes a charter he cannot incorporate An that charter the provisions of any existing charter because there is not such an existing charter for an inner London borough. As the Bill now stands he is not obliged to do that. The only thing he is obliged to do is to provide a charter. He may, when providing a charter, include in it provisions of existing charters. But that is not obligatory, provided the charter is obligatory for outer London boroughs. Including in the charter, with modifications, the provisions of existing charters is something that he may do.
We can, therefore, properly say that it would be reasonable and practicable

to amend the Bill so that he has got to provide a charter for every borough, and where it is a borough composed of metropolitan boroughs which have no existing charter he neither can nor need include in the new charter provisions of existing ones. He has got to make a charter from the start.
There is nothing impracticable in the proposal, but the Government may ask, "Is it necessary? Metropolitan boroughs have apparently managed without charters during the sixty years of their existence. Now that they are to be amalgamated and made into proposed boroughs of the new Greater London, surely they can equally well get along without charters."
To counter that argument we have to consider, first, the question of dignity and, second, the question of powers. Even if it were a matter of dignity alone, there would be a case for equipping all the boroughs of the new Greater London with the same dignity and status. It is impossible to say that this dignity is such an empty thing that the inner London boroughs ought not to want it, because, if it is as empty as that, why is it preserved in the Bill for the outer London boroughs? I do not think it desirable that dignity should be disregarded in these circumstances.
All these new boroughs are being set up, and the very working of the Bill will depend upon a great deal of cooperation, not only co-operation between one inner London borough and another and between one outer London borough and another but co-operation between inner and outer. One should not create an arrangement from the start by which it is presumed that one set of them, the outer London boroughs, have some slight advantage in dignity or prestige over the inner London boroughs.
This might prove quite a vexing question in a great many matters. If the Bill is to work at all, there will have to be frequent conferences between different boroughs. Such questions as, for instance, which borough is to convene a conference will arise. If there are meetings of representatives, what will be the order of precedence? One reason why, in diplomatic affairs, there is careful observance of rules of protocol is that, if there are not clear rules of precedence and protocol when conferences are held, it is easy to give offence.
Presumably, the London boroughs will, for their own convenience, have to devise some such rules of precedence and protocol, not with too much fuss but with as much as is necessary. If there are to be such arrangements under the Bill as it now stands, the outer London boroughs will be able to say from the start that they must be regarded as in some sense senior or more dignified than the inner London boroughs because they have charters and the others have not. I suggest that this is not an inconsiderable argument.
There is also the question—perhaps more difficult to answer—as to whether it will make any difference to the powers of the boroughs that some will have a charter and some will not. Here I am indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl), who has drawn my attention to what I regard as a significant passage in this connection in a judgment of Mr. Justice Bennett given in a case which went on from October till December, 1942, the case of the Attorney-General v. Leicester Corporation.
The point at issue in that case was whether the Leicester Corporation had power to do certain things, complaint having been made about its having done them. The relevant passage in Mr. Justice Bennett's judgment is as follows:
The corporation"—
that is, Leicester Corporation—
were constituted by royal charter, and it is well settled law that, generally speaking, such a corporation can do anything that an ordinary individual may do".
That appears to be the situation as regards anything coming into existence by charter. A mere creature of statute, on the other hand, as a metropolitan borough is or as the inner London boroughs will be, according to the Bill as it now stands, can do only such things as the statute specifically permits it to do.
Very often, in local government, this does not matter much because, even if a local authority which owes its existence to a charter has, by virtue of that fact, power to do a good many things, it often just has not the money to do them. It has enough money to perform its statutory duties, but that is all. However, a situation might arise

in which a borough had an exceptional source of funds. It might have revenues from property it owned, it might have benefactions, it might have funds other than those which come to a local authority in the ordinary way.
If such an authority is incorporated by charter, it can use its funds to do anything which an individual may lawfully do, but if it be a borough which owes its existence merely to statute, not being incorporated by charter, then it can do only those things which the statute expressly permits it to do. It seems to me, therefore, that, at first sight, and to a layman's judgment, a difference is being made between the outer and the inner London boroughs not only in dignity, but in powers, also. I can see no real justification for it, and it was for that reason that I moved the Amendment.
4.45 p.m.
This is, I suggest, an Amendment which the Minister can concede without great difficulty. AH that is required of the Government, if they agree to it, is that they shall go to the little extra trouble of providing charters for the proposed 12 inner London boroughs as well as for the 20 outer London boroughs for which charters have to be provided anyhow. This, compared with the whole labour of reorganising London government, is not all that much.
As the Minister knows, we are now beginning the Committee discussion of a Bill on which there is no general agreement in the House. It is not our intention on this side to delay the passage of the Bill frivolously or vexatiously, but we are fully entitled to say that the Government cannot expect us to help its passage. We regard it as a Bill of which very grave criticisms can be made. Even if it is discussed, as we hope to discuss it, seriously and without frivolity, it is bound to take a long time.
In view of this, the Minister will, no doubt, be anxious to get as much good will as he can, or, at least, not by inconsiderate behaviour to turn the natural opposition which we feel to the Bill into a rancorous hatred of anything which may be proposed during the Committee stage. If that is what the Minister wants to do—and, if he is wise, it will be what he wants—he can take the opportunity at once of showing that he


is ready to accept Amendments to the Bill.
Compared with the great issues which will come later, this is not a major question, but it is, I trust the Committee will agree, a matter worth some discussion. It has the further advantage that it gives the Minister the opportunity to show himself as conciliatory in regard to such parts of the Bill at least on which conciliation is at all possible.

Mr. William Roots: The hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) has raised an interesting point and, no doubt, my right hon. Friend will deal with the Amendment in detail in a few minutes.
As regards the reported case on which the hon. Gentleman relied, a passage from which he read, I submit that the whole gist of the decision, if I recollect aright, lies in the words "royal charter". The Minister will not create a royal borough. He will be creating a borough by charter under either the Municipal Corporations Act or succeeding Acts. If I recollect aright, the distinction relates to a royal charter, in other words, a common law charter which gives certain powers, whereas a charter issued under a statute, which is what the Minister would issue, would create a corporation which would be in no different position from that of any other borough or statutory creature.

Mr. G. W. Reynolds: I put two points in support of the Amendment. Later, when we come to the Schedule dealing with repeals, we shall, I understand, subject to anything we may learn—there is much to learn about some pants of the Bill and there are many questions to be asked—be wiping out, in effect, the London Government Acts.
If we do 'that and go into many aspects of the law to bring the present L.C.C. area into line with the provisions of the Local Government Act, 1933, where they differ from these provisions, we will remove what is to a certain extent an anomaly but something which has grown over a long period in the way that the L.C.C. and the metropolitan boroughs were created, I cannot see why we should maintain it in respect of the 12 new metropolitan boroughs because of

a whole range of occurrences which happened in the past.
We are getting rid of many reasons which caused that situation to exist. We should put the L.C.C. area boroughs in the same situation as boroughs which will exist in future in the geographical counties of Essex, Middlesex, Surrey and Kent. We should put them on the same basis as boroughs in the rest of the country.
This Bill will mean the perpetuation of a system whereby boroughs situated in the heart of the Metropolis are in a different position from boroughs anywhere else. We shall see in years to come some of the existing small boroughs in other parts of the country demoted to parish councils with a mayor, but they will still have a charter. In the past, I have said that the powers of metropolitan borough councils are more akin to parish councils than to a non-county borough outside London. Huge metropolitan boroughs with populations of over 200,000 will not be allowed to have a charter. Some people have deep feelings on this matter. Some of the existing boroughs, with a population of 2,000, with a charter will be rural boroughs in future and will have the powers of parish councils, but will keep their charter, yet 200,000 people in the centre of London will be denied a charter. This is a denigrating aspect of local government in the Central London area.
I understand that one of the main reasons for the Bill, which, obviously, will occupy us for many weeks, is what is alleged to be a lack of interest in local government, not only in the Greater London area but all over the country. We are told that something will have to be done to liven it up, to stimulate more interest in it and, although I do not entirely agree with this, to try to persuade better people to stand for election to local authorities. If this is so, surely we should do everything we can to reorganise and reform local government in order to give local authorities the highest possible status. I cannot understand why we should perpetuate a system of having some second-class boroughs in central London compared with boroughs in the geographical counties of Essex, Kent, Middlesex and Surrey.
I hope that the Minister will accept this Amendment and will realise that the new metropolitan boroughs should all have the same status even if they do not all have exactly the same powers.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Sir Keith Joseph): I am in a difficulty here. I have been delving as deeply as I could into this very tangled field, and I intended to try to meet the Amendment by a direct acceptance of it on behalf of the Government because I recognise that the question of dignity is important. But, unfortunately, I have to tell the Committee that, with the best will in the world, it is beyond my power to advise it to accept the Amendment.
Let me explain the problem. As the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) clearly said, there is this distinction. The metropolitan boroughs, which are the elements composing the inner London boroughs, are the creatures of statute and owe their origin to an incorporation order under statute, whereas each of the outer London boroughs contains at least one unit of local government which has been the recipient of a charter from the Sovereign. It is not for a Minister to ignore that one particular group contains an element which had a charter nor to intrude on the prerogative by laying down in a Bill that a charter should be given when no charter has been given before.
If it were that problem alone, I should not be in difficulty. It would be possible for me to say, "This is not for the Government, nor for the House, but there should be no difficulty, in due course, in a petition being made by an inner London borough when created". The problem is that the prerogative is not used to reproduce provisions that have already been set out, as they have been for the inner London boroughs in the incorporation orders originally setting up the metropolitan borough councils. Obviously, the charters which matter so much to those who hold them would not be considered so important if they were merely rubber stamps reproducing automatically provisions that had been passed, in the case of the metropolitan borough councils, by statute at the end of the last century.
This is a real difficulty, and I can comfort the Committee only by saying

that there is certainly no distinction in dignity intended either by the Bill or by the Government between inner and outer London boroughs. I hope that, having explained the genuine difficulty, the Committee will not emphasise a distinction that is not intended.
I am advised that there is absolutely no difference in powers between the inner London boroughs and the outer London boroughs as proposed by the Bill. The hon. Member for Fulham gave a quotation. He is not, I think, a practising lawyer. I was trained in Roman law many years ago, but I am not a practising lawyer and I must lean on the advice given me that there is no difference in substance in the powers of the inner London boroughs.
I hope that the Committee will accept that, with the best will in the world, I cannot advise it to accept the Amendment. It is open to any citizen of Her Majesty or to any group of citizens constituted, as they will be, in inner London boroughs to petition for some mark of favour. It is not for me to go further than to say that or to offer any prospect. I hope that hon. Members will recognise that there is a real difficulty which cannot be overcome. The heart of the difficulty is that the prerogative is not used to reproduce provisions that have already been made.

Mr. Ede: I am wondering how it is possible to justify rejecting the idea behind the Amendment, because there is no doubt that a borough which has a charter has come into existence by a very different process from the metropolitan boroughs, which were once described to me by Lord Morrison of Lambeth, before he was ennobled, as being little better than glorified parish councils.
The obtaining of a charter is a process which, outside London, has been the ambition of most thriving and growing local authorities, and the incorporation of the inhabitants after an inquiry by the Privy Council is undoubtedly a recognition of sound local government in the area which receives the charter. I took part in all the preliminaries for the obtaining of a charter for the Borough of Epsom and Ewell, which has the great distinction of being the only borough to be torn in two parts by the Bill.
5.0 p.m.
To obtain the charter, we had to present a petition from the inhabitants and from the then urban district council An inquiry was held by the Privy Council, not by the Minister of Health. In the end, having proved that we had the resources of men and money that would enable local government to be adequately conducted under a charter and having proved that we had taken certain steps with regard to the maintenance of the amenities of the area and for building up adequate public services, the inspector sent down by the Privy Council recommended to 'the Crown that the charter should be granted. There were then negotiations between the Privy Council and the representatives of the borough as to the exact form that the charter should take.
There is no doubt that that gives to local government in an area a standing that is not to be obtained merely by calling the place a borough. It is an incorporation of the inhabitants. The peculiar thing is that the incorporation is of the mayor, aldermen and burgesses. It is not incorporation of the town council. It is the incorporation of the inhabitants and gives them a recognition of sound government in the past and conveys the belief of the Privy Council that that will be carried on under the new status that the inhabitants are to receive.
It is important to recognise that it is not the town council, but 'the inhabitants, who are incorporated—the mayor, aldermen and burgesses. Apparently, the only job of the councillors under the charter is to elect the aldermen. It is an interesting survival of the way in which great cities have been administered during the ages down to the Municipal Corporations Act, 1835. I hope that the Minister will be able to find a way in which this peculiar and valuable status can be conferred on these great new boroughs with a quarter of a million people that he is bringing into existence by the Bill.
I wonder whether a statement could be included in the Bill that it shall be the duty of the new Council, when it comes into existence, to apply to the Privy Council for a charter, to permit the continuation of the process which, undoubtedly, can be followed now. I

suppose there is no reason why the Borough of Paddington should not apply to be made a borough under the ordinary process that I have described. I hope that the Minister will not give up and leave us with the anomaly of having the inner part of London unincorporated with the outer fringe incorporated.

Sir K. Joseph: The right hon. Gentleman speaks with such authority that when he makes a mistake I must correct him at once. The inner London boroughs will be full boroughs in the sense that all their inhabitants will be incorporated. They will be incorporated under the incorporation order. They will not be, as the metropolitan borough councils were, purely incorporated as to their councils.

Mr. Ede: I still hope that they will be incorporated through the Privy Council, which is the essential part of incorporation in the rest of the country. It is securing the recognition by the Privy Council and, through the Privy Council's recommendation, by the Crown of the status and standard of the government that has been carried on in that area.

Mr. Albert Evans: From his experience as a Privy Councillor, can my right hon. Friend say whether, in considering such an application, the Privy Council would give weight to the support that the Minister of a Department might give to an application? When the Minister seems favourably disposed, I wonder whether his support would weigh with the Privy Council.

Mr. Ede: From my experience, what happens is that the various Government Departments are consulted. If they object on the ground that in their view a district has not been well governed, they can appear at the inquiry into incorporation and can state their views.
I am certain that both sides of the House of Commons are anxious that in the new local government of Greater London we shall have the advantage of as high a status, in the eyes of all the people who are competent to express an opinion of the bodies to be created, as we can get. I hope that the Minister will not despair of finding a way in which, on the recommendation of the Privy Council, a charter may be submitted to the Crown and of ensuring that these boroughs are encouraged to present such a petition.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I do not consider that the Minister's arguments hold water. My view is that it is quite possible to give effect to the wishes of the Committee in this matter and that the difficulties suggested by the Minister are not real.
It is true that historically, some of the boroughs outside London have had charters and that the boroughs inside London are metropolitan boroughs created by Act of Parliament. In the Bill, we are proposing to create an entirely new set of boroughs. For example, as the Minister has said, it is not the case that all the new boroughs have a charter with respect to the new areas. The Minister's words were that all the outer boroughs contain some unit to which a charter was given.
Those units, however, are being destroyed. Therefore, the validity of the charter to one of those units is being destroyed because the unit itself is ceasing to exist and a new area of local government is coming into existence to which any existing charter ceases to have application. Therefore, the idea that there is some sanctity in a charter given in the past to an area of local government which will now cease to exist as an independent area must be completely wrong.
The second fallacy is this. The Minister has referred to the prerogative. Either Parliament, through the Minister, can make provision for inner boroughs as well as outer boroughs having a Charter, or it cannot. Having heard the Minister's speech, I am not clear what the position is. I should have agreed with my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) that hitherto, the granting of a charter was an act of the Privy Council and not something that was done by Parliament.

Mr. Ede: My understanding is that the grant of a charter is the act of the Crown, which is advised by the Privy Council. The petition is presented to the Privy Council, which starts the whole of the proceedings going.

Mr. Fletcher: I entirely agree. Therefore, I ask myself what is the meaning of the words in the Bill that the Minister shall make provision for a charter for a borough. That is entirely novel. Surely, this is the first time that Parliament has been asked to enact that a

Minister shall make provision for a charter for a borough.
Does that mean that in future the discretion of the Crown, on the advice of the Privy Council, depends on the whim of the Minister, whether he will or not ask for the provision of a charter for a borough? It may mean that. If it does mean that, then it is equally possible for the Minister to make such provision in the case of an inner London borough as for an outer London borough. Therefore, it is complete nonsense for the Minister to say that what he proposes to do for outer London boroughs he cannot do for inner London boroughs because he is prevented by the royal prerogative. But even if it were necessary to refer to the prerogative it would not be the first occasion on which Ministers had advised Her Majesty to renounce the prerogative in order that a sensible and proper provision might be made in an Act of Parliament.
It does not seem to me that the Minister has really given any thought to this matter at all. It is quite obvious, as my hon. Friend argued so cogently, and as, I think, the Minister concedes that it is abundantly desirable that in these new provisions we are making about the greater London area there should be an absolute equality of status, of power, of dignity, and of everything else, between all the various units which are going to be incorporated in the London Government area.
For us to start out on the footing that there is some discrimination between the inner London boroughs and the outer London boroughs will create an invidious atmosphere from the start, and that would be regretted—certainly by the inner London boroughs and, I think, by the outer London boroughs as well—and would lead to all kinds of difficulties for fruitful co-operation.

Sir K. Joseph: rose—

Mr. Fletcher: Let me finish. The Minister had plenty of time to think about it. After all, if he has not thought about it, it is our duty to help him to think about it.
I am arguing that there are not the difficulties he appears to think there are, and that he has not given enough


thought to the appropriate machinery to give effect to what my hon. Friend is proposing and my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields is supporting and which he himself concedes is desirable. This is another illustration of the failure of the Government to think things out before they bring in Bills.
I am anxious to get this right. It seems to me a comic idea that even in regard to the outer London boroughs the Minister should ask Parliament to give him power to make provision by a charter for the boroughs. What is to happen under the First Schedule with regard to a new unit which incorporates three existing chartered boroughs? Are all those charters to be torn up? Will the Minister ask the Privy Council to make one new charter? If he can do that, why cannot he do it for the new joint borough of Islington and Finsbury or any of the other new inner boroughs?
Take the borough of my right hon. Friend. What sense does it really make in my right hon. Friend's case to say, with such natural pride, that the Borough of Epsom and Ewell has a charter, a very deserved charter, if this borough is to be cut up? What is the use of the charter? Will it be preserved for half the borough which remains? If Parliament can cut up a chartered borough into two, does each separate part have a separate charter afterwards?
If, under the Schedule, we have another local government unit which incorporates a chartered borough with an urban district, and if the borough prides itself on having and, no doubt, fought bard to get, its charter, is that chartered borough now to share the advantages of that charter with an unchartered pant of the area? That may be a very sensible thing to do. It is not an obviously sensible thing to do, but if it is something which the Minister can do with regard to provisions in areas in outer London he can equally do it in regard to the inner boroughs.
That is the force of the argument that we are trying to put forward, and unless we can have a more satisfactory and a more convincing answer from the Minister about his willingness to accept the Amendment I shall share the view of my hon. Friend that we shall not make much progress with the Bill.

5.15 p.m.

ir K. Joseph: I will try to help the Committee once again. The right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), in his intervention, did not seem to recognise one of the difficulties here, namely, that the prerogative is not, I understand, used to give a charter where a working charter has already been given, as was done in 1899. That is the difficulty. That is why it is not just a simple case of saying that the inner London boroughs will be able, as Epsom and Ewell was able, to make petition with the same sort of prospect of consideration by the Privy Council and then advice to the Sovereign. On the other hand the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) does not recognise that the wording of subsection (2, b) gives the Minister—the Government—through Parliament the power to give a charter to a borough only because it already, in part of it, has a charter.
Of course, when it comes to the incorporation order, part of it will be done and, explicitly, as a charter in 'the new outer London borough, since the issue between an unchartered and a chartered borough is whether there is a Charter or not. It is also an issue as to what is contained in the charter, but the principle we are discussing is not what is or is not contained in the charter but whether there is a charter or not. I still repeat that that is our real difficulty.
With respect, I have tried to study the possibilities. I will try to study them again. If it will be any satisfaction to the Committee I will undertake to do my very best during the time that lies ahead to look into 'this as deeply as I can, but it must be understood that I cannot give any hope or prospect ultimately since this is a very complicated and difficult subject, and we must all be very careful not to intrude upon the prerogative. What is at issue here is not only whether a borough has a charter or not but the fact that the charter comes from the Crown on advice of the Privy Council. I remain willing, if the Committee wishes, to undertake to study it again, if my undertaking is interpreted in the context of 'the words I have used.

Mr. Tom Driberg: An assurance that is immediately followed by the words "absolutely no hope or prospect" is not much of an assurance.

Sir K. Joseph: "No undertaking that I would be successful". May I substitute those words?

Mr. Driberg: A slight improvement and I thank the Minister for it; but he has been in two moods this afternoon, I think, so far. His original speech was helpful so far as it went, and was obviously intended to be sympathetic in tone, but some of us were rather puzzled to see him vigorously indicating dissent, as HANSARD puts it, when the suggestion was made from this side of the Committee that when the Privy Council is considering how the Sovereign should be advised on the granting of a charter there would presumably be consultation with the responsible Minister, that is, with himself. Surely that must be so?

Sir K. Joseph: No, because, as the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has just explained, charters are given by the Monarch on advice by the Privy Council, not by the Government.

Mr. Driberg: The Minister misses my point. How can the Privy Council advise intelligently unless it knows, by consulting the responsible Minister, whether local government has been efficiently administered in that area? How? The right hon. Gentleman said that that was one of the conditions, did he not? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Somebody did. He did not indicate dissent at that point, and I think that it must be so. It is only common sense.
A charter would not be given to some absolutely squalid little borough which had been maladministering its affairs for centuries. There must be some investigation. How does the Privy Council investigate except through the Minister and his Department? It cannot merely send for the local town clerk and ask him, "Is yours an efficient local government? "He will not answer, "It is not—and it is very corrupt."
I hope that the Minister will take this matter seriously because it is clear, if one reads the subsection with care, that he is, in effect, abolishing royal charters altogether in so far as they apply to any part of the area in question. He is turning royal charters into ministerial charters. There is no doubt about it. That is what those words mean. Indeed, the word "charter" in this subsection is not even prefixed by "royal", as one might

expect it to be if the argument which he has been using is a sound one.
We have all sorts of charters—including industrial charters and housewives charters. The word "charter" does not of itself mean "royal charter". No doubt the word has been left out of this subsection because he is turning these royal charters into ministerial charters. So I cannot see why he should not go a little further and, instead of leaving it to the burgesses to petition the Crown for their charters, himself take the initiative and tender advice to Her Majesty—'Which is the right of the Government of the day to do on almost any matter—and thus redress this slight anomaly.

Mr. G. A. Pargiter: In the Seventh Schedule to the 1958 Act, special provision was made for a borough included in a rural area to carry out the functions which it had under its charter. If it were necessary to include such special provision then, what is the difficulty now concerning these proposed new boroughs? If this Amendment is not accepted, the position of these new London boroughs will be as it would have been in those oases without the special provision of the 1958 Act.
It was decided in 1958, to give the boroughs then involved this special provision because the Government wanted to offer something to their inhabitants to salve their wounds at being put into other districts. In this case the concensus in the Committee is that we do not want distinctions. The case has been well argued for there not being any and I cannot see that the Minister's case is valid. This is a quite unnecessary provision. The simplest way would be to leave these words out of the subsection.

Sir K. Joseph: The 1958 Act makes exactly the same distinction in its treatment, on the one hand, of boroughs which are merged with other boroughs—being boroughs they have charters and will therefore continue to have them—and, on the other hand, of urban districts made into county boroughs where the urban district, not having had a charter but having been incorporated, may not receive a charter. There is exactly the same distinction, therefore, in the 1958 Act as there is here.
I repeat my undertaking. I will do my best to see whether there is any way through this problem, and will report back to the Committee. I have honestly tried to warn the Committee that my undertaking must be made cautiously and have made it clear that I cannot be very hopeful of being able to find a way through. But I hope that the Amendment will be withdrawn in the light of what I have said.

Mr. Stewart: I have listened with great interest to the Minister and I am sure that he is trying to be helpful and has treated the Committee with great candour. The trouble is that his candour has disclosed some of the weakness of his position. As I understand it, his argument has been that he could not put into the Bill a provision that he should provide inner London boroughs with charters because, he says—and I hope I paraphrase correctly—it is not for him to destroy existing charters nor to create new ones where none existed. For that reason, apparently, he could not put charters for the new inner London boroughs into the Bill. But in the Bill he takes power to create new charter rights.
As has been pointed out, here is the phenomenon of a Minister being expressly empowered by a Bill to provide charters for new boroughs. It is true that such charters would be on the ruins of old charters and boroughs, but they really would be new charters. He is creating new charters for outer London boroughs, however. Thus he cannot really say that it is not in his power or that it is not appropriate for him to create charters. He is doing it. The right hon. Gentleman then went on to say that when the Bill was through possibly the inhabitants of the new inner London boroughs could petition for charters.

Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Gentleman has missed out one step. I think he would agree that I said that since the inner London boroughs will contain no unit that ever had a charter since they were incorporated and since charters did not act as rubber stamps and merely reproduce what had been done before, it was not possible, I am advised, for them to be given charters.

Mr. Stewart: That is the point I was coming to. If that is so, there would not

be the slightest use in their petitioning for charters at any time.

Sir K. Joseph: I said that it would be open to any body of citizens to petition for a mark of favour or distinction. I did not say that it was open to them with any hope to petition for a charter in these cases.

Mr. Fletcher: What is to prevent this Committee from providing that they should have the right to do so, if that is the only way they can have equality with outer London boroughs?

Mr. Stewart: I think it is clear what the Minister has said. They can petition for some mark of favour but it would be hopeless for them to petition for a charter. That is very important. It means that unless we make some alteration in the Bill they will have no hope of obtaining charters either now or at any other time. I cannot quite understand the nature of the undertaking the Minister has given to the House. Is he undertaking that he will try to see if there is any way in which these boroughs can get chanters?

Sir K. Joseph: Yes.

Mr. Stewart: He is undertaking that. But he was demonstrating with great emphasis just now that it was quite impossible for them to get charters. Which actually is the case? I think that his solution of some special mark of favour other than a charter is really a non-starter. That, if anything, will rub in the difference between these boroughs and other boroughs. We are thus left with the position that it is the Minister's view that charters cannot be granted merely to rubber stamp something in cases where the work of a charter has already been done by some other means. I question whether that is the position which arises under the Bill.
5.30 p.m.
It is true that the work of providing, say, Fulham and Hammersmith as separate boroughs with the power to govern themselves has already been done by Statute; but the Bill creates a new entity, a new borough, combining Fulham and Hammersmitlh, just as it creates a new borough combining Bethnal Green and those areas which go with it. Sometimes it creates new boroughs which cut existing boroughs into pieces.
The work of providing the new boroughs with a form of government has not been done. The work of providing the present metropolitan boroughs with a form of government has been done. The work of providing the new London boroughs with a form of government will not have been done until the Bill is passed, and the Bill can provide for them, as it provides for the outer London boroughs, that it should be done by charter.
Therefore, I do not accept that the Minister is correct when he says that they could not get a charter because the work has already been done by other means. However, if he is correct—and he seems to be very definite about it—it is out of the question for them to be able to get a charter. His undertaking amounts to saying that he will try his very best to do something which he has demonstrated to us as being impossible. I do not think that he will believe that we are cantankerous when we say that that is not satisfactory.
As the Amendment has taken more time and trouble than I had hoped, may I suggest a way out? It is that we accept that the Minister is to try, difficult as it will be—and he thinks it more difficult than we do and he thinks it impossible; but to try is praiseworthy—to find a way out. Let him accept the Amendment Which will put on him a statutory duty to do something which we think ought to be done and which we think can be done, but which he thinks cannot be done.

Mr. Driberg: But would like to do.

Mr. Stewart: But would like to do. If he will accept the Amendment, he will put on himself that statutory obligation, and that would be a pledge of the seriousness with which he takes his undertaking. If he were to do that and

then came back on Report and said, "Since I have been saddled with it as a statutory obligation, I have had to search fox ways and means of doing it, but even in an Act of Parliament it is impossible", we should not grumble nor take too long to accept an Amendment to take it out again. He loses nothing by giving us that advance pledge and it would be an encouragement to those hon. Members who want to prevent the inner London boroughs from starting Life with a slur and indignity on them as compared with their fellows.

Sir K. Joseph: We all share the same objective. The hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) has taken an ingenious initiative and I will try to respond similarly. Whether he and his hon. Friends decide to withdraw or to press the Amendment, I undertake that I shall do my very best to find a way round the difficulty. However, in this uncertain and delicate matter I cannot advise the Committee to accept the Amendment. I hope that it will be withdrawn, but, withdrawn or not, I shall seek to the best of my ability to find a way round the difficulties, which we all acknowledge.

Mr. Reynolds: In the Local Government Act, 1958, similar problems were anticipated. There are three lines in Section 45 which read:
The enabling provisions of this Part of this Act shall be deemed to be in addition to, and not in derogation of, the powers exercisable by Her Majesty by virtue of Her royal prerogative.
I should have thought that we could have included something about the royal prerogative and say that it was in addition to it and not in derogation of it.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 277, Noes 201.

Division No. 24.]
AYES
[5.34 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Braine, Bernard


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Bidgood, John C.
Brewis, John


Allason, James
Biffen John
Bromley -Davenport, Lt. Col. Sir Walter


Atkins, Humphrey
Biggs-Davison, John
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry


Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Brown, Alan (Tottenham)


Balniel, Lord
Bishop, F. P.
Bryan, Paul


Barber, Anthony
Bossom, Hon. Clive
Buck Antony


Barter John
Bourne-Arton, A.
Bullard, Denys


Batsford, Brian
Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Burden, F. A.


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Box, Donald
Butcher, Sir Herbert


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Cos &amp; Fhm)
Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward
Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)




Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Holland Philip
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Hollingworth, John
Partridge, E.


Cary, Sir Robert
Holt, Arthur
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Channon, H. P. G.
Hooson, H. E.
Peel, John


Chataway, Christopher
Hopkins, Alan
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Chichester-Clarke, R.
Hornby, R. P.
Pilkington, Sir Richard


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Hornsby-Smith, Rt- Hon. Dame P.
Pitman, Sir James


Clarke, Brig. Terence(Portsmth, W.)
Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)
Pott, Percivall


Cleaver, Leonard
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Cooke, Robert
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)


Cooper, A. E.
Hughes-Young, Michael
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John


Cordeaux Lt.-Col. J. K.
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Pym, Francis


Cordle, John
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Corfield, F. V.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Ramsden, James


Costain, A. P.
James, David
Rawlinson, Sir Peter


Coulson, Michael
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Renton, Rt. Hon. David


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Crawley, Aldan
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S)
Ridsdale, Julian


Crosthwaite-Evre, col. sir Oliver
Joseph. Rt. Hon. Sir Keith
Robson Brown, Sir William


Crowder, F. P.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Roots, William


Cunningham, Knox
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Curran, Charles
Kershaw, Anthony
Russell, Ronald


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kimball, Marcus
St. Clair, M.


Dance James
Kirk, Peter
Scott-Hopkins, James


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kitson, Timothy
Sharpies, Richard


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Lagden, Godfrey
Shaw, M.


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Lambton, Viscount
Shepherd, William


Doughty, Charles
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Skeet, T. H. H.


Drayson, C. B.
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Smith Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


du Cann, Edward
Leavey, J. A.
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Duncan, Sir James
Leburn, Gilmour
Speir, Rupert


Eden, John
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Elliot, Capt Walter (Carshalton)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Stevens, Geoffrey


Elliott, R.W. (Nwcastle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Lilley, F. J. P.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Stodart, J. A.


Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Litchfield, Capt. John
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Lloyd Rt.Hn. Geofrrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Studholme, Sir Henry


Fell, Anthony
Longbottom, Charles
Summers, Sir Spencer


Finlay, Graeme
Longden, Gilbert
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Fisher, Nigel
Loveys, Walter H.
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Lubbock, Eric
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)


Foster, John
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Teeling, Sir William


Fraser, Rt.Hn. Hugh (Stafford&amp;Stone)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Temple, John M.


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Mac Arthur, Ian
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Gammans, Lady
McLaren, Martin
Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)


Gardner, Edward
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Gibson-Watt, David
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute&amp;N. Ayrs)
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Glover, Sir Douglas
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Ian (Enfield, W.)
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Godber, J. B.
McMaster, Stanley R.
Turner, Colin


Goodhart, Philip
Macpherson, Rt.Hn. Niall (Dumfries)
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Goodhew, Victor
Maddan Martin
Tweedsmuir, Lady



Maginnis, John E
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Gough, Frederick
Markham Major Sir Frank
Vane, W. M. F.


Grant-Ferris, R.
Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Green, Alan
Marshall, Douglas
Vickers, Miss Joan


Gresham Cooke, R.
Marten, Neil
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell


Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Walder, David


Gurden, Harold
Mawby, Ray
Walker, Peter


Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Wall, Patrick


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Mills, Stratton
Ward, Dame Irene


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Montgomery, Fergus
Webster, David


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Morgan, William
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Hastings, Stephen
Morrison, John
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Hay, John
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Wise, A. R.


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Hendry, Forbes
Noble, Rt. Hon. Michael
Woodhouse, C. M.


Hiley, Joseph
Nugent, Rt. Hon. sir Richard
Woodnutt, Mark


Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Woollam, John


Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Worsley, Marcus


Hirst, Geoffrey
Page, Graham (Crosby)



Hocking, Philip N.
Page, John (Harrow, West)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. J. E. B. Hill and Mr. Rees.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.


Ainsley, William
Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central)
Bence, Cyril


Albu Austen
Bacon, Miss Allot
Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E)
Beaney, Alan
Benson, Sir George







Blackburn, F.
Hilton, A. V.
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Blyton, William
Holman, Percy
Peart, Frederick


Boardman, H.
Houghton, Douglas
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)
Popplewell, Ernest


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W.(Leics, S.W.)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Prentice, R. E.


Boyden James
Hoy, James H.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Probert, Arthur


Bradley, Tom
Hughes Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hunter, A. E.
Rankin, John


Brockway, A. Fenner
Hynd, H. (Accrlington)
Reynolds, C. W.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Rhodes, H.


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Callaghan, James
Janner, Sir Barnett
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Carmichael, Nell
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Jeger George
Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)


Chapman, Donald
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Ross, William


Cliffe, Michael
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Royle, Charles (Salford, West)


Collick, Percy
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Short, Edward


Crosland, Anthony
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Silverman, Julian (Aston)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Dalyell, Tarn
Kelley, Richard
Skeffington, Arthur


Darling, George
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
King, Dr. Horace
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lawson, George
Small, William


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Ledger, Ron
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Deer, George
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Snow, Julian


Delargy, Hugh
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Dempsey, James
Upton, Marcus
Spriggs, Leslie


Diamond, John
Loughlin, Charles
Steele, Thomas


Dodds, Norman
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Driberg, Tom
McCann, John
Stonehouse, John


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
MacColl, James
Stones, William


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
McInnes, James
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
McKay John (Wallsend)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mackie, John (Enfield, East)
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
McLeavy, Frank
Swain, Thomas


Evans, Albert
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Swingler, Stephen


Fernyhough, E.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Symonds, J. B.


Fitch, Alan
Mallalleu, E. L. (Brigg)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Fletcher, Eric
Manuel, Archie
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
Mapp, Charles
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mason, Roy
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)



Mayhew, Christopher
Thornton, Ernest


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mellish, R. J.
Tomney, Frank


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mendelson, J. J.
Wainwright, Edwin


George,Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)
Millan, Bruce
Warbey, William


Ginsburg, David
Milne, Edward
Weitzman David


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mctchison, G. R.
White, Mrs. Eirene


Gourlay, Harry
Moody, A. s.
Whitlock, William


Greenwood, Anthony
Moyle, Arthur
Wilkins, W. A.


Grey, Charles
Neal, Harold
Willey, Frederick


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Oliver, G. H.
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Oram, A. E.
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Oswald, Thomas
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Gunter, Ray
Owen, Will
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Padley, W. E.
Winterbottom, R. E.


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Paget, R. T.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Hannan, William
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Woof, Robert


Harper, Joseph
Pargiter, G. A.
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Healey, Denis
Parker, John
Zelliacus K.


Herbison, Miss Margaret
Parkin, B. T.



Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Pavitt, Laurence
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Redhead and Dr. Broughton,

Mr. Arthur Skeffington: I beg to move, in page 2, line 18, to leave out from "III" to the end of line 21.

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Samuel Storey): It will be in order to discuss with this Amendment the Amendment in page 2, line 21, leave out "sixty" and insert "seventy".

Mr. Skeffington: Yes, Sir Samuel. The purpose of the Amendment, which I hope will commend itself both to the

Committee and the Government, is a fairly simple one. It is to a degree quite important, because it goes to the heart of representative local government. When the Government were advancing reasons for the Bill and for the change in the structure of the Greater London area, one of the things that they said they wanted to do—and this was also implicit in the recommendation of the Royal Commission—was to make local government more vigorous and interesting, and to attract people of the


highest quality to the service of the local authorities.
I thought that both the Royal Commission and the Government were a little back-handed to the existing councillors who do all the work, but giving full merit to the positive side of the Government's argument, as the Bill is now drafted they are doing a disservice to the representative character of government as we have known it in the London area. If my Amendment were accepted, it would remove the limitation of 60 councillors which the Government have thought fit to incorporate in the Clause.
I suppose that that number has been chosen because of its metropolitan borough association. I do not know. If that is the reason, it is rather a silly one. Perhaps we can be given the reason why the Government think that this is an appropriate number. In seeking to remove the limitation, neither I nor my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) is saying that some councils with smaller populations will necessarily require 60 councillors. All that we are seeking to do is to ensure that in some of these new and much larger London boroughs there will not be what seems to us an inflexible and artificial limit.
The new boroughs are to be much larger than the metropolitan boroughs, and they are to have much bigger populations. They will also have new functions. Indeed, some populations of the new Greater London boroughs will exceed 300,000, which is a large figure. By limiting the number of councillors to 60 for these much larger boroughs, the Government are at one blow taking away a considerable number of representatives from the people living in the Greater London area. This is a great disservice to local government.
Both in local and in national affairs we are living in an age of increasingly complex social machinery. Citizens often feel lost, and they need help. In the past we have always been able to tell them, in matters affecting local as well as national government, "If you have a problem of this kind go to see your local councillor". The fact is that the Bill as it is now drafted will make it much more difficult for people to do that very

thing. It is sometimes now difficult for electors to contact their local councillor. If the number of electors which a local councillor is to represent becomes much larger and the distance which electors have to go to contact him becomes greater, the difficulty will be increased in a way which we think unnecessary and wrong.
What is the effect of the Government's proposals as compared with the present situation in the Greater London area? According to Circular 43/62 which the Ministry sent to us—may I say how much I appreciated the document which the Minister has sent to all members of the Standing Committee; I feel that while we were possibly taking part in the "funeral" ceremony of London government the Government have tried to do what they could for the convenience of the "mourners". Looking at that circular, one sees that the population of the new unit with which we are dealing in this Bill is 7,999,416. At this stage I might comment that to talk of a population of nearly 8 million is in itself somewhat curious when we are discussing local government. But that is, in fact, the figure.
Excluding county councillors in both the comparisons I want to make—because I wish them to be exact—at present in this area there are 2,995 councillors—that is, borough councillors, urban district councillors and councillors of that category. On the average they represent 2,670 electors. This is a fairly small number. It means that a borough or a district councillor has an opportunity to get to know a great number of his electors and the electors have the opportunity and ought more easily to get to know their councillor. As the Bill is drawn, and with the artificial limit imposed by the Government, the number of borough and district councillors will be reduced from 2,995 to 1,920, a reduction of over 1,000 in the elected representatives in the Greater London area. As I said, this goes to the very heart of representative local government, and I shall require substantial reasons to be advanced for agreeing to this reduction in the number of public representatives in that area as is proposed in the provisions of this Bill.
A reduction from 2,995 councillors to 1,920 means that the representative electorate is increased to 4,170. That is not


an unduly high figure, but it is certainly not as convenient a number as 2,670, the average electorate which a borough or a district councillor now represents. This, it seems to me, must worsen the relationship between councillor and elector. It widens the gap, and I think that unfortunate. I see no reason for it. This Amendment, while giving discretion to the Minister by allowing him flexibility, will, in respect of many of the large boroughs, provide for a number of councillors in excess of 60 where it is felt that the size of the population and the functions to be performed would justify a greater number.
I have dealt with the democratic theory of the matter, which I consider of importance. We require more people rather than fewer to represent the common man in this age of complexity. But there is a second reason which is of practical importance in connection with the outer London boroughs which, under the terms of the Bill, will become full education authorities with responsibility for the day-to-day management of schools and institutions of technical education and for many other matters.
I have been a member of an education committee. I do not know how many other hon. Members have had that responsibility. It is a pretty heavy responsibility if taken seriously, as I am sure the representatives of all boroughs would wish to take it. Some of the new Greater London boroughs will have more than 40 schools in their areas, which in itself means considerable work. The boroughs will have to deal with the day-to-day matters connected with those schools, with staffing problems and, in relation to Middlesex and London, with entirety new responsibilities.
The boroughs which become education authorities straight away could advance a strong practical case for having more people to do the work. This would fit in very well with paragraph 518 of the Royal Commission's Report, which states:
Among those who are interested in local government at all there is in general a very strong interest in education. It is clear to us that a large number of councillors would like to serve on education committees and would like to regard the schools and the education service generally as one of their chief interests.

Some of us have said that, however laudable this sentiment may be and however much councillors may want to do this sort of work, it is hardly a justification for upsetting the structure of local government in the Greater London area. I have developed that argument before now and there is no need for me to do so again on this occasion. But the Royal Commission has said that if it is desired to create an interest in local government councillors should be allowed to serve on education committees.
There are arguments against it. But having accepted the findings of the Royal Commission and argued that education ought to be the resposibility of the boroughs, why should the number of councillors be limited in the case of authorities which will straight away become education authorities? All hon. Members with practical experience know that this is a service which requires a large number of active members not only to sit on the committees but to do other work outside in the schools and other institutions. I hope that the Minister will consider the principle of having a convenient number of people to represent the citizens. I should have thought that was something which was very close to the heart of a Conservative. We often hear the cry from hon. Members opposite that the local people should decide, that 'the man in the town should make the decision and not Whitehall. So why on earth should the Government cut down by over 1,000 the number of councillors in the Greater London area?
If the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) were accepted, it would give some flexibility. But I should like the matter left to the Minister, on the strict understanding that in the case of the large boroughs with a population of more than 300,000 the number of 60 should be removed, so that additional councillors could be elected to really represent the common man and take a proper part in the discharge of the new education function.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: I appreciate that the idea behind this Amendment is the same as the idea which was in my mind when I tabled the Amendment in my name which


appears on the Notice Paper. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) told us that under this provision the average electorate represented by the councillors of the boroughs in Greater London would number 4,170. He might have added that some councillors will be representing a larger number than that.
Anyone who has served on a local authority will agree that one of the most important tasks of a councillor is to maintain a day-to-day contact with the people in his ward. If a councillor does his job conscientiously, he will spend his spare evenings visiting his electors and explaining to them the reasons behind council policy. In return he will hear their views on the matter, which should be of concern to a local authority. I think that the larger the local authority and the smaller the number of councillors serving on it, the more difficult will this task become.
6.0 p.m.
The Amendment in my name is designed to mitigate some of the ensuing remoteness of local government from the ordinary man-in-the-street. At the same time we did not feel that it was wise to establish vast and unwieldy councils by unduly increasing the number of councillors who serve on those bodies. This increase from 60 to 70 is therefore a compromise between having a very large number of councillors who might find it difficult to get enough work to do and having so few that they are not able to perform the tasks which are such an essential part of the councils' work.
Incidentally, this increase from 60 to 70 would mean that if we subsequently decided not to have aldermen on the local authorities—and I hope I am not transgressing the rules of order by referring to this—we should still have the same numbers serving on a local authority as before, because a later Clause provides that there should be one alderman to six councillors. That is another reason why I chose this figure. I think my Amendment provides a useful compromise between two extremes, and as such I hope that it will be accepted.

Captain John Litchfield: I hope that my right hon. Friend will feel

able to accept the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington), which I prefer to the more rigid Amendment in the same sense in the name of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock).
The difficulty in limiting to such a figure as sixty the number of councillors in an amalgamated borough is particularly acute where a fairly small borough such as Chelsea is to be amalgamated with a much larger one such as Kensington. I shall explain to my right hon. Friend and the Committee the effect in this particular case of which I have details. Under the proposed arrangements, in the amalgamated borough of Chelsea and Kensington we shall have a population of around 216,000. Under the Bill this greatly enlarged borough will be represented by a council of 60 councillors and ten aldermen.
As things are at present, Chelsea Borough Council, which serves a population of around 50,000, is represented by 36 councillors and six aldermen, 42 members of the council in all. According to my calculations, after the amalgamation with Kensington the Chelsea representatives on the enlarged borough council will amount to only 14 councillors and one alderman. They will be serving the same population as the present borough council of 42. This will put very considerably enlarged responsibilities on them under the Bill.
I am well aware that in most councils the more responsible work and decisions are handled by a fairly limited number of dedicated persons, chairmen and so on. Nevertheless, one of the criticisms of London County Council as it is at the moment has been its remoteness of control. I cannot help feeling that a very much geographically enlarged borough such as Chelsea and Kensington and a population more than four times that of Chelsea to be served by a council so far as Chelsea representatives are concerned of no more than about one-third of the present number of representatives will tend to lead to a certain remoteness of control as things stand under the Bill.
This, perhaps, will be rather specially the case in an awkwardly situated new borough with many long transverse lines of communication. I hope that my right


hon. Friend understands the problem as it will affect a particular case such as this. Personally, I would support the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington. I hope the Minister will be able to take that into account and at least leave himself some discretion in the appointment of the number of representatives in these boroughs.
I am not convinced that it is necessary to lay down the numbers precisely in the Bill. We all want to avoid the disadvantages of a very unwieldy body, but at the moment it seems too small. I hope that without tying himself to any number at the moment my right hon. Friend will leave himself discretion to judge each authority on its needs and circumstances.

Mr. Walter Edwards: I support everything that has been said by the hon. and gallant Member for Chelsea (Captain Litchfield). My proposed new borough will have approximately the same population as his and will be confronted with the same difficulty as Chelsea when Chelsea is joined with Kensington and when my borough comprises Stepney, Poplar and Bethnal Green.
I want to get clear why this proposal has been put into the Bill. Is there a special motive in stating that the maximum number of councillors should be 60? Does that mean that those with the greatest population will have 60 and those with a smaller population will have less than 60? The hon. and gallant Member seemed to have the impression that because the population of Kensington and Chelsea will amount to 215,000 there will be 60 councillors. I hope he was right, because if Kensington and Chelsea as a combined borough is to have 60 councillors there will be no justification in not providing 60 councillors for the new London Borough of Stepney, Poplar and Bethnal Green.
I rather suspect, however, that this is in the Bill in order that the Minister may himself decide on a smaller number of councillors for some of the new London boroughs. If that is the case, I tell the Minister that it will be a very grave mistake. I have had a little experience in this matter. I served for nearly twenty-five years on Stepney Borough

Council. I know exactly what work has to be done if the council is to conduct its business properly without leaving most of the responsibilities, and sometimes decisions, to the officials of the council. It is essential to have the largest number of suitable and competent members of the council to see that the council's business is run in the proper way.
The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) mentioned the work which councillors in the various wards have to do. My experience bears out what he said. In addition, in the East End boroughs—I make a special plea for the new borough of Stepney, Poplar and Bethnal Green—the problems are much greater than those of some of the West End boroughs. What we find in East London is that not only do the councillors go round to see the electorate but the electorate come knocking on their doors day after day and night after night. My wife is a member of Stepney Borough Council. It is a wonder that we have a knocker left. People come to see her, for example, when they have no coal or if there is a freeze-up in a block of flats—all sorts of problems which appear to be minor problems but which in fact are major problems to those people who have no means of attending to them. It is therefore essential that the number of councillors is not too low. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington that it ought to be even higher in the larger areas, but it certainly ought to be no lower even in the smaller areas.
Let us visualise what will happen with these three borough councils. Later they will have additional housing work, and other work will be passed to them which is now carried out by the L.C.C. There will be 60 councillors operating in these three boroughs, and it will be quite difficult for many of the constituents to know who their councillors are. It will be very difficult for people to get the service which a councillor desires to give to his electorate; because of the vastness of the area he will be unable to give it.
I feel that for the benefit of local government the Minister ought to accept the Amendment, which in no way injures the Bill or the purpose of the Bill but which in fact would make it a better


Bill. I hope that the Minister will keep an open mind but will make certain that in the smaller, new London boroughs, in particular, there will be sufficient councilors to carry out the functions properly. If it is necessary to 'have more councillors in the larger boroughs, well and good, but let him not fall below 60.

Dr. Alan Glyn: I do not want to detain the Committee for long, but I hope that my right hon. Friend took note of what was said by the hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. W. Edwards) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelsea (Captain Litchfield). I was particularly impressed by the point made about the increasing functions of these authorities. We must bear in mind that many of the new boroughs will be awkward in shape. As my hon). and gallant Friend said, Chelsea and Kensington will be extremely difficult to administer.
My right hon. Friend ought to take this into consideration in two ways. First, he should provide a great degree of flexibility because of the different shapes and types of the boroughs and, as the hon. Member for Stepney pointed out, the different character of the boroughs. In the whole of the time that I have been on the Chelsea Borough Council I do not think that I have received more than a couple of telephone calls on council business, whereas in Stepney a borough councillor will probably have many calls in a week from individuals about different problems. We are thus faced with a problem which can be solved only by some degree of flexibility among the various boroughs.
I suggest that the boroughs themselves must be closely consulted, for they know roughly what their needs will be in the future, and they must take into consideration the revised functions and increased powers which they will have under the Bill. I hope that my right hon. Friend will look at this matter carefully, because there is merit in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington. If he cannot accept the Amendment, perhaps he will give the Committee an assurance that he will think this problem over and let us have a decision at a later date.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. G. A. Pargiter: The point which arises here is perhaps rather wider than that put by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington). He said that a councillor would represent about 4,000 inhabitants, but in fact the wards will consist of about 12,000 inhabitants—and that is the factor which matters. The ward will elect three councillors, so that any one of them may at any time be representing 12,000 people. We cannot divide it into three, with each councillor representing 4,000 inhabitants. In effect we shall have three councillors, each representing 12,000 people. This is far too many and far more than one could possibly hope to deal with.
Surely it is running entirely contrary to the principles which are supposed to be behind the Bill—those of making local government local. The Bill seeks to transfer from counties, which are said to be too large for some of their functions, some of the intimate services which are to go to the boroughs in order that people may be nearer their elected representatives and their services. I recognise that as a county councillor in a county council area I may be representing 20,000 electors, and the argument is that we must avoid this state of affairs, but under the present proposals one councillor will be representing 12,000 people. Moreover, he will be dealing with services which in the past have been regarded as more intimate than some administered by 'the county council. It seems to me that there is a good case to be made for the argument that a councillor ought not to represent so many people and that the structure needs to be considerably altered.
An alternative is to provide greater flexibility in the number of councillors who may be elected. If they are to be elected on the basis on which county councillors are elected, representing a ward, which is presumably what the structure will be, then a larger number must be provided 'than at present. It would not be so bad if all were elected representatives, but if we are told that ten of them are to be appointed, not owing allegiance to particular wards or sections of the population, then the position is even worse than has already been suggested.
I hope that the Minister will see the wisdom of looking at this situation again with a view to ensuring that the electorate will be properly represented which, after all, is the first function which we have to consider. Secondly, we must see that the councillor who is elected can properly do the job. If we take those two considerations into account, we cannot possibly accept the provisions proposed.

Mr. Frederic Harris: Everything which has been said this afternoon supports my view that 'this is a bad Bill. I have gained no encouragement from what has been said in the debate. The first Amendment became very complex, as we all found, and the second point, which we are discussing, confirms in my mind the view that those who are behind these proposals know very little about what they are doing. I cannot imagine for a single moment what is the idea behind the limitation in numbers of 60.
The hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Pargiter) touched on the vary point which I want to make—'that the hon. Members for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffing-ton) and Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) miscalculated the position and appeared to take the total population in the greater London area and to divide it by the number of councillors, concluding that the resulting number was the population which each councillor would represent. It works out between 3,000 and 4,000. But the hon. Member for Southall is correct in saying that these councillors will represent 10,000 to 12,000 people.
In the County Borough of Croydon, sadly soon no longer to be a county borough, we already have a population of 250,000. If the Bill goes through in its present form—and I know that some of my hon. Friends are 'trying to alter it, and I shall support them where I can—the borough is to have added to it Coulsdon and Purley, and we shall then have a population of one-third of a million. We shall be the largest Greater London borough. Whatever importance that gives us compared with our present status of being a county borough, I do not know. Our councillors now represent 10,000 to 12,000 electors in their own wards, and under these proposals they will represent 16,000 people.
It is just not on. Anybody in the House of Common's with any knowledge

of local government work—a large number of hon. Members have such knowledge—knows that a councillor cannot represent 16,000 people and do the job as conscientiously as he should. I sincerely hope 'that the Minister who answers this point will not rise having already had the answer set out for him and give us a completely unsatisfactory answer. If he does and this matter is pressed to a Division—I hope that it will be, particularly the first Amendment—I shall certainly support the Amendment. It is absolutely wrong from the word "go" to impose a limitation of 60.
I am certain that a place like the County Borough' of Croydon is not receiving anything like the consideration it deserves. This is another typical case where we will eventually be told by the Bill that Croydon, with Coulsdon and Purley added on, with a population of one-third of a million, will be limited to 60 councillors. What good local government idea can lie behind that thought? It is a very bad performance altogether. I sincerely hope that the Minister who is to reply, for his own sake—because 'there is not a single hon. Member here who has done anything but support the Amendment—can see 'the wisdom of this and will at least accept the first Amendment without any qualification whatsoever.

Mr. Skeffington: May I enlighten the hon. Gentleman on one point? I took actual electors in each case—or, rather, sometimes I took electors and sometimes population. Although I may have put it in a rather modest way, this is the fairest comparison, because sometimes now councillors are in wards of various sizes. Even taking the figure I gave of the future electorate compared with the present electorate, this is a very considerable weakening of the representation of the ordinary man.

Mr. Harris: We are as one in regard to our apposition to the Government in this. I rather gathered from the hon. Gentleman's speech, which I followed with great interest, that he virtually appeared to have taken the total population of the Greater London area of just about 8 million and divided it by the number of existing councillors. I may be entirely wrong about that. However, we have the same idea in mind.

Mr. Laurence Pavitt: I feed a little diffident about intervening in this debate in what seems to be a unanimous Committee. Every hon. Member who has spoken seems to be of one accord that the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) could be accepted, or alternatively that the Amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) should be given further consideration.
I want to echo the plea made by the hon. Member for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn). I can understand the Government's difficulty. They seek to introduce a scheme which has a certain amount of shape to it. In doing so they must inevitably incline to be rigid. It must be obvious to everybody from all the topics discussed today that no two boroughs are alike. No two boroughs are of the same size. No two boroughs have the same problems. The Minister should be grateful to the Committee for trying to get him out of the difficulty in which he has placed himself by having this rigidity in this part of Clause 1. Even if the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend were accepted, many councils might still decide that they wanted sixty. However, it would provide the opportunity for a little give and take when the conditions of a borough demanded that.
The hon. Member for Croydon, North West (Mr. F. Harris) was rather courageous in trying to probe what was behind the Government's mind. Hon. Members have been doing this for centuries, but they have never found out what is behind a Government's mind. The hon. Member has told us of the large number of electors there will be in Croydon, but there will be only 168,000 in the adjoining borough. Some of the 32 boroughs will be twice as large as others.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stepney (Mr. W. Edwards) spoke of the differing functions, the differing conditions, and the differing activities that go on in an area. My constituency, because it is a Middlesex area, is at the moment a housing authority. It is clear that the pinch is the relationship between the local councillor and those who elect him. I know that I do not have to convince the Minister in charge of the Bill of Willesden's housing problems. He has

been only too aware of them, not only in his present post but when he was Parliamentary Secretary. With all the housing pressures of overcrowding, with all the problems which arise in an area like mine where 55 per cent. of the people are in shared accommodation—two families living under one roof—the first port of call for such people is the local councillor. If this is to be spread so that somebody in Wembley is to tackle the housing problem of somebody living in Willesden at a time, say, when the police have been called in to settle a court case between upstairs and downstairs, it will lead to many difficulties in my area. I will not weary the House by going over the whole list of items that my hon. Friend the Member for Stepney put forward. All of us who have served on local authorities know that this is the case.
I have in mind something affecting street lighting or a road. The only way in which a resident is able to bring pressure to bear is by contacting the person who knows, who is close to him, who has lived in the area for some time, and who has been elected. That is the only way to get something done in the council chamber. We have all had experience of this because from time to time we have to resist these pressures. We try to be fair. It is at the stage when the elector says "Will you please come and see this for yourself" that one starts to take the thing up, to be a little persistent, and sometimes to be a little awkward in the council chamber until action is taken.
The first person that parents want to see about what goes on in local schools is their local councillor. The restriction of sixty so that there is not the fluidity flowing from adequate representation places upon the Minister a burden which it is not right that they should bear.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington gave facts and figures. Unless there is fluidity we shall find ourselves burdened with something that is schematic, something where everybody has to fit into a bureaucratic pattern, where good local government, instead of being enhanced by the Bill, will be injured. This is not a matter of principle. We are not altering in any way the right eventually to have some kind of limitation on the number according


to local circumstances. We share with the Minister the idea that we do not want a local council of about 250 people arguing like a mass meeting. We understand why there should be certain limitations. Unless the Minister accepts an arrangement whereby the localities themselves can have that kind of government which suits them best and not something which is dreamed up in Whitehall, I hope that my hon. Friends will press this matter to a Division.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Russell: I support the Amendment, at least to the extent of asking my right hon. Friend to give himself more flexibility to fix the number in the way my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelsea (Captain Litchfield) suggested and not limit himself to the rigid number of 60. There are two reasons additional to those which have been already mentioned.
First, not only is the total number of councillors being reduced. The total number of aldermen is also being reduced. That will make a considerable difference to boroughs in Middlesex—perhaps more so than to those in the London area—because, for example, in Wembley there are at present 12 aldermen; in other words, one to every three councillors. Under the new regime, however, the ratio will be one to every six and instead of having 12 to itself Wembley will have—if the proposed amalgamation with Willesden goes through, and I shall have something to say against that later—four instead of 12, and so another reduction is made.
There is an additional reason. The fact that there is a difference in the populations of these boroughs has already been mentioned. This is very true. The largest seems to be the Borough of Lambeth, plus a section of Wandsworth, with a total population of 341,000. The smallest seems to be the Kingston-upon-Thames group with a total population of 166,000. Thus, one is more than twice the size of the other.
I wonder what my right hon. Friend's intentions are about the minimum number of councillors? Has he in mind any sort of proportion, because if 341,000 people are to have 60 councillors it would seem that 166,000 will have only about 30 councillors? I can think of boroughs

in the London area, like Stoke Newing-ton, which at present have 30 councillors. Stoke Newington has a population of only 52,000 people. Are we to jump from a borough with 52,000 people and 30 councillors to a borough with 166,000 also with only 30 councillors?
I hope that the Minister will arrange these matters in some form of proportion and I urge him to bear in mind the differences in size, of more than two to one in some cases. He should relieve himself of the rigid limit of 60 and allow it to go up to, say, 80, or whatever may be thought fit.

Mr. R. J. Mellish: Four hon. Members opposite have spoken on this topic and each one of them has been in favour of the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington). Each of them has spoken with great knowledge of local government and it would seem, therefore, that a case for the Government to accept the Amendment has been fully established.
This is indeed an odd Government. They have introduced a Bill which has caused great affront to local government throughout the review area. At a time when they propose to introduce more services at local level they propose to cut down by more than 1,000 the number of councillors who must do this work. This is a monstrous attitude of mind, especially since the people doing this work offer their services voluntarily and do their jobs to the best of their ability.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary explain how, when the Government propose to place more work on local authorities, the committee system will work with fewer councillors? At present, local authorities are divided into a number of committees—public health, housing, and so on—and with the extra work being placed upon them they will have even more committees; for child welfare, the mentally handicapped and especially for dealing with the elderly. Is all this additional work to be thrown on to fewer councillors?
My hon. Friend the Member for Stepney (Mr. W. Edwards) was right when he said that we will not be sure just what the numbers should be. The Bill merely mentions the figure of 60, but does not


contain a minimum figure. My constituency is small and has 42 councillors. Under the new set up is that figure to be reduced to 10? It is monstrous to treat people in this way, whatever their party allegiances. It is monstrous for the Government to say that a certain figure is all that a certain borough is worthy of.
If, with an average sized borough, the figure of 60 is to apply, then Bermond-sey, with its population and size, would get only 10 on a pro rata basis. The Minister has no right to write such an obligation into the Bill. He must agree that this is a matter for consultation. "We will not decide to put this figure into legislation, but we will take it on its merits and discuss the matter with the people who are to do the work", the right hon. Gentleman should say.
As has been said, if the Bill is to be a success there will need to be a great deal more co-operation, especially from those who are to run the local authorities. I remind the Minister that he will be giving to local authorities services which many of them have never asked for and, frankly, many of them think they are not equipped to handle—and I am thinking especially of tasks involving mental health and the handicapped.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Southall (Mr. Pargiter) that one cannot say that a councillor represents 4,000 to 5,000 members of the electorate but, rather, that he represents a ward of, say, 10,000 to 12,000 people. More demands will be made of him under the Bill. I urge the Parliamentary Secretary not to give us a Civil Service brief when he replies, one containing a list of figures, but that he will concede the point, say that the Government will consult with the local authorities and that he accepts the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington.
I urge the right hon. Gentleman to accept this Amendment and not that moved by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) because, typically Liberal, that one writes in another figure and is a compromise—and it is the wrong figure, anyway. We consider that this should be a matter for consultation with the local authorities concerned so that they can do the job thev are equipped to perform.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. F. V. Corfield): I shall clash a little with the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), because since a number of figures have already been presented in the debate so far, I shall have to use some as well, despite his request to the contrary.
When the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) opened the debate he drew attention to the fact that the figure of 60 was the same as the limit laid down for the metropolitan boroughs under the London Government Act. I can assure him that it was not for this basic reason that this particular figure was selected. It was selected because experience has shown that it strikes a reasonable balance between the danger of local authorities becoming too unwieldy, on the one hand, and too remote, on the other. Of the existing 28 metropolitan boroughs, only 10 have councils of the maximum size.
A great many of the points raised were directed to the fact that the new boroughs would, in many cases—in the outer London area, at any rate—have the powers of county boroughs. It is of interest to note that the existing three county boroughs in this area all have relatively small councils. Croydon, the largest, has 48 councillors and 16 aldermen and the Committee will remember that outside London the proportion of aldermen to councillors is one to three instead of one to six. In West Ham, the figures are the same—that is, 48 and 16, making a total of 64—while East Ham has 30 and 10, making a total of 40. Thus the argument that these functions cannot be carried out without a substantially larger number of councillors does not hold water in the light of the experience of the county boroughs in the neighbourhood.

Mr. F. Harris: My hon. Friend has stated that Croydon has 64 elected representatives on its council. He must be aware that this is with the present population of a quarter of a million. He must also be aware that the intention is to increase that number to one-third of a million and that the population can grow even larger in the years to come. What is the point, therefore, of limiting the figure in question to only another six people?

Mr. Corfield: I hope that my hon. Friend will be patient. I am coming to that point. I was trying to deal with the question of the number of councillors sufficient to man the various committees necessary for the full functions of county boroughs as we have now but to which the new London boroughs will be very similar regarding their powers. I was saying that experience shows that these figures are adequate. We have consulted the local authority associations, which agree that a statutory limit written into the Bill is desirable and that 60 is an adequate number.
But just as there is obviously danger of becoming too remote if there are too few councillors, there is equally a danger of not being able to man the requisite committees. We do not visualise that even the smaller boroughs, because of their functions, will have substantially fewer than the maximum, for the reason that they will have to man the same committees.

Mr. W. Edwards: And more.

Mr. Corfield: No, they will all have to man the same committees, but I would also point out that the largest borough, which is Lambeth with part of Wandsworth added, works out, with a total of 60 councillors, at one elected representative to 5,600 electors. This is a figure quite substantially less than occurs in many of the county boroughs in the country. It compares very favourably, for example, with Birmingham with 9,450, Liverpool with over 6,000, Manchester with nearly 6,000, Leeds with over 6,000 and Sheffield with over 6,500.
Therefore, there is plenty of experience in county boroughs to show that this is not an impossible figure to manage, and, of course, the Committee will bear in mind that it is not only a question of numbers but a question of geography. Quite clearly, a fairly high number of electors per representative can be managed in a concentrated area such as, almost by definition, we are dealing with in the Bill.
I would, therefore, urge the Committee to withdraw the Amendment, because I think it is quite clear that 60 is an adequate number. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why? "] We regard it as desirable to have uniformity. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why? "] A great deal of the debate on

the last Amendment was surely directed to the desire to have no distinction between either individual boroughs or classes of boroughs but, as my right hon. Friend then pointed out, his inability to get uniformity there was due to technical and constitutional problems rather than any lack of desire. We have no such obstacle here.

Mr. Mellish: I do not know what authority the hon. Gentleman has for talking about uniformity. As far as we read the Bill, that is not correct and there will be in the London area local authorities with far fewer than 60 members. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that every Greater London borough will have 60 members? If not, is not that a denial of his argument about uniformity? Why cannot people be left to discuss with the Minister what is suitable for local needs?

Mr. Corfield: I am sorry, but I did not mean to imply that all the local authorities would have 60 members, but that there would be a uniform maximum laid down by statute. I made the point, however, that owing to the number of committees to be manned, and so on, we do not visualise that there will be councils with substantially fewer representatives than the 60 laid down. The local authority associations take the same view.

Captain Litchfield: Before my hon. Friend finally commits himself, I hope that he will think again and not drive some of his most loyal hon. Friends into opposing this part of the Bill, which otherwise they will do.

Mr. Corfield: As I have already told the Committee, this is a provision both as to size and numbers of councils. The idea of having them statutorily laid down has been agreed with the local authority associations. I urge the Committee to accept the Clause as it stands. Therefore, I cannot advise the Committee to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Pargiter: Would the hon. Gentleman say what local authority associations have agreed to this?

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I apologise to the Committee for my voice. I have a bad cold. The Parliamentary Secretary mentioned three county boroughs which are already in


existence. He quoted in aid Croydon, East Ham and West Ham and he explained that there are about 40 aldermen and councillors combined in East Ham and about 60 in West Ham. This makes 100. Therefore, in future there will be a maximum of 60 where there are now 100. But two other areas are to be added and, therefore, we shall have a larger combination of two county boroughs which will have almost half the present number of councillors and aldermen.
6.45 p.m.
In my area—and I am sure that I speak also for East Ham—these aldermen and councillors are ordinary working-class men and women. There are housewives, dock workers, engineers, bricklayers, carpenters, and labourers among them. If a councillor has a job to do he might well be on night work or shift work, but if, at any given moment, Councillor Smith is not available people go to see Councillor Jones.
This is a useful system when there are two councillors to a ward. One can be a member of a housing committee and the other a member of the health committee. If someone comes round to discuss a problem the situation is made easy because one might say, "I am Councillor Smith, but I am not on the housing committee. See my colleague, Councillor Jones, who also represents the ward and is a member of the housing committee. Discuss the matter with him." The position under the Bill will be that with additional numbers from Barking Borough Council and Woolwich we shall have fewer councillors to carry out more services.
The remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) should be borne in mind. The. Minister can easily leave this matter for negotiation. He need not promise to agree to any extension. He can leave it open so that the town clerks and the boroughs when formed can argue the merits, if any, of the case for a larger number of representatives. They may not be needed in every area. It may well be that an area which already has 60 may say that that number is sufficient, but I am sure that Croydon, for example, will want the opportunity of at least saying to the Minister,

"Under the Bill we cannot ask for more. Leave it open to us so that when the time comes when we want to ask for more and we can substantiate that there is a claim, you as Minister will be free to give us what we want."
We are not asking the Minister to commit himself to anything, except to say that he will allow freedom to himself and to the councillors concerned to approach him to substantiate their claim.

Dr. Alan Glyn: I appeal to my right hon. Friend to think again. Both sides of the Committee have been extraordinarily reasonable. We are trying to help my right hon. Friend. If the proposed amalgamations go through in Battersea and Wandsworth—and I hope that they will not—we shall have fewer councillors than we now have. I ask my right hon. Friend to look at this matter again and to say that there is merit in what has been said on both sides of the Committee today. I ask him to say that he welcomes the freedom which the Committee has given him to be flexible in choosing the size of representation according to the exact circumstances.
I am sure that the Committee would not press for a Division if he gave that assurance.

Mr. Skeffington: In view of the united representations made to the Minister from both sides of the Committee, I think that not only has the Parliamentary Secretary been unforthcoming, but, if I may say so without offence, rather perfunctory. He has not referred to the fact that under the Bill people in the Greater London area will lose 1,025 representatives.
This is a very serious loss. The hon. Gentleman made no reference to the fact that the great outer London boroughs are to become education authorities. Everybody knows that this is a very heavy commitment indeed. I must say that it is rather hard that he should use the existing county boroughs to justify the Clause as now drafted because they are working so well. The hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. F. Harris) and others may well say, "If they are so good, why are you altering them at all?"
We have couched this Amendment in very moderate terms, giving the Minister great flexibility. I hope that if the


Minister is not more forthcoming the whole Committee will vote for the Amendment. It would not destroy the purpose of the Bill, but it would give the Minister power which he is at the moment denying himself.

Wing Commander Eric Bullus: May I add my plea to the Minister to think again? Many hon. Members have spoken in support of the Amendment. We are not asking him to insert a figure in the Bill, but we do ask that he should have permissive powers. If they are not required, he need not use them. So much in the Bill smacks of imposition. Here is an opportunity for the Minister to say, "I will try to take the Committee with me. I will take this back and think again". If the Minister gives this undertaking, the Amendment will no doubt be withdrawn.
I am certain that every borough is affected by the provision. In Wembley, there are 48 representatives—the same number as for Willesden—and yet there are to be fewer councillors to do more work. That is the position of almost every borough that is affected. Here is an opportunity at the outset for my hon. Friend to try to be more flexible and to accommodate those hon. Members who have spoken to the Amendment.

Sir K. Joseph: I think that the comments made by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee carry a good deal of weight. I would normally have asked my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to make any concession that might be made, since he has stood up to the fire of hon. Members from the beginning. I am anxious to oblige the Committee and to go some way, but there is something that I must say first, which will make for disagreement between hon. Members on both sides of the Committee and myself, and, since that has to be said, I would rather make the speech myself.
There is an issue of principle here. The hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. W. Edwards) and others have quoted with admiration—and I share that admiration—the day-by-day activities of councillors in London and, indeed, all over the country. There are hundreds and thousands of them who give help to their constituents in every way they can.

These are honourable endeavours, and we owe a great tribute of praise and gratitude to such people.
But—and here is the point of possible disagreement—if the local government machine is working properly, many of the cases that go to the councillors, and with which councillors have to concern themselves, should have been dealt with by officials—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am not seeking to deny the right of councillors to do exactly what they want in this way, but there should not be as much need as it is suggested there is in some cases.
It is for councillors, above all, to decide policy and it is for councillors to see that officials carry out that policy. Whenever councillors wish to involve themselves in individual cases it is entirely up to 'them to do so, but there should not be such an overwhelming need that they have to employ their entire leisure in doing it. If they want to do so, that is fine—

Mr. W. Edwards: I imagine that the right hon. Gentleman has never served on a borough council, particularly in the East End of London. It is easy for him to say that the councillors decide policy and that it is their job to see that the officials carry it out. Let the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that we are dealing with old people, in many cases. Many of them can hardly write a letter to the municipal offices, let alone pay fares out of their old-age pensions in order to go and visit the offices. It is essential, in the interests of such people and in the Government's interest as well, that there should be a sufficient number of well-merited people who are prepared to take up these cases. They do not take them up because they want to be a nuisance, or because they want medals. They want to give service.

Sir K. Joseph: There is nothing between the hon. Gentleman and myself in what he has just said, but I maintain that we must not judge the necessary size of a council by the heavy work load that some councillors—and all honour to them—think it necessary to do. It may be necessary in some areas to do it, but it should not be necessary in every area. If it is a pleasure and a job that they want to do, fine; but the officials and the organisation should be


such that the work should in most cases—not in all cases, obviously—be done.
This leads me to say that any concessions that the Government might contemplate here on further consideration could not be such as to free altogether a council to have as many members as it pleases. What I am willing to offer is that we will take this away and look again at this particular number and move possibly in the direction of a larger number, but we may possibly have to come back and say, "On consideration, we do not think that this is right." What I suggest is that we will take it away and consult again with the local authority associations in the light of this debate, but I must repeat that any concession which might be made would still have a maximum to it.
Before I sit down, in the hope that that will satisfy the Committee for the moment, I would like to strengthen the argument of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary by quoting a few other local authorities which as county boroughs, already have to carry the responsibilities that the London boroughs will have to carry. Nottingham, with a population of 313,000, has a total council of 68. Coventry, with a population of just over 300,000, has a total council, including aldermen, of 64. Leicester, with a population of 273,000, has 64, and Cardiff, with 256,000, has 68.

Mr. A. Lewis: In every case that he has quoted there are more than 60.

Sir K. Joseph: I am including aldermen. The number in the Bill is 60 plus 10 aldermen, making 70.
I hope that the Committee will recognise that there is here some virtue in a limit to make sure that the council is such a body as can really consult among itself and not be unwieldy. That is common ground. I will gladly take this away and reconsider it, and I will consult the local authority associations again, but I must remind the Committee that any concession that is made in size will be subject to a maximum. I hope that the Amendment will be withdrawn.

Mr. M. Stewart: First. I want to take up what I think was the very important and rather unwelcome reference which the Minister made to the individual casework of councillors and the relative

duties of councillors and officials. I think that I follow the point that he was making, and there is substance in it. But let us take the very important problem of the allocation of housing vacancies. I accept fully that that ought to be done on agreed principles of policy and that it would be very improper if somebody had a better chance of getting a housing allocation simply because he had been to see a councillor and had been exceptionally persuasive.
I follow that point entirely. But what the Minister has completely neglected is this. A decision on policy can be made on how housing vacancies are to be allocated. One can decide, for example, as a number of councils do, that it is to be done on some kind of points system, making so much allowance for the length of time that somebody has been on the list, so much allowance for his present accommodation, the size of the family, health and all the rest. Once such a points system has been agreed, I fully accept that it would be highly improper for there to be personal approaches to councillors enabling people to get accommodation in defiance of the general principles of the scheme.
7.0 p.m.
What the Minister does not seem to grasp is that the councillor who does a great deal of individual meeting of people is able to discover whether the policy which is laid down is sound or not. It may well be that a points system which gave so much weight to one factor and so much to another made good sense in 1950 but not good sense in 1960. How are councillors best to find out? Mrs. Jones comes to see a councillor and argues with him, asking why she has not yet got a house. The councillor may not be able, or should not be able, to reveal to her the whole detail of the points system because much of such systems sometimes has to be kept confidential, but, if he is doing his job, he will listen carefully to what she says and he will then weigh in his own mind what the situation is.
In such circumstances, the councillor will take into consideration that, according to the borough's present policy, Mrs. Jones must be told that she has a long time yet to wait. But he will ask himself whether the policy is sound—"Does the fact that somebody in the position


of Mrs. Jones 'has to wait in that way suggest that there is something wrong with the points system, that it has become out of date and it ought to be amended?". He cannot reach a decision on the basis of just one interview with one complainant. The whole value of his seeing a great many of the individuals he represents is that he is able to get a picture of the working of the policy forged in the council chamber or in committee, argued out, and administered by officials.
By seeing a great many people, he is able to understand what the policy means in actual human realities. This is the importance of it, and this is why, apart from the rather special cases where they may be able to help individuals, councillors ought to be able to do that kind of work.
Policy ought not to be twisted merely to meet individual hard cases without regard to how other cases will be affected, but neither should policy be framed without a fairly extensive knowledge of individual cases. This is why I say that the work which my hon. Friends have been describing is both necessary and important, and we ought to think twice before we reduce the number of councillors to such an extent that it cannot properly be done.
For that reason, I cannot agree with the conclusions which the Minister reached. He contends that we can safely afford to reduce the number of councillors because this case work, which may be attractive or enjoyable—I think that he said that councillors may enjoy it, which struck me as a rather curious word to use—is not really necessary. For the reasons I have given, I do not accept that. In the best administrated authorities, where there are very good policies, not subject to favouritism or carelessness in administration, individual case work is still necessary if the policies are to remain good and be kept up to date.
One should look at it also from the individual's point of view. Many of us have had the experience of having to tell a constituent, "I am extremely sorry, but, in fairness to other people, you cannot have what you want now". The constituent goes away from an interview like that disappointed, but, very often, disappointment is not his only reaction. There may sometimes be

something of real value to him in feeling, "I have not got What I wanted, but I am satisfied that I am not being discriminated against. I know that I have had a fair deal even if that fair deal does not give me what I should like". In a democracy, it is an important task to be able to explain to people that they are getting a fair deal even if it is not the particular deal which they would like.
I do not accept the Minister's argument that we can afford to reduce the number of councillors because these individual contacts are not necessary. That he should advance that argument shows that he has not properly considered the real nature of the councillor's work.
The other major theme of the Minister's speech was the nature of the concession he was offering. I do not want to be ungrateful. I can well appreciate that hon. Members opposite were, quite naturally, very glad to feel that a breach between them and a member of their Government was being narrowed. If I may say so, I never have very much respect for people Who enjoy disagreeing with their own party. It is something which, as a matter of conscience, a man may have to do occasionally, but it is not something which a good man ever does without regret. I want to explain to hon. Members opposite why I do not think that what the Minister offered was a concession of substance.
The Minister has said that he will look at the matter again, but he will bring back to us another fixed figure, which may be a larger one. When I say a fixed figure, I mean a maximum, of course; we are speaking of a maximum all the time. There is no question at all of a single fixed figure for every borough so that they are all the same size. If he brought back anything different, the Minister would bring back a different maximum higher than 60, and he said that he must do that because one could not have each borough deciding what size it would be.

Sir K. Joseph: Sir K. Joseph indicated dissent.

Mr. Stewart: If it was not the right hon. Gentleman, it was the Parliamentary Secretary who advanced that argument. There is no question under the Bill of any borough being able to decide by and for itself what size it


would be. The Bill clearly lays down that the Minister will decide the number of councillors in each borough, whether the Amendment be carried or not.
What the Amendment deals with is this. Granted—and we fully accept it—that the Minister ultimately must decide the size, ought he to tie himself by fixing a maximum in advance? It is this point that the Minister has not conceded. The whole weight of our argument has been that, if we want to have things right and if we do not want to appear to be dictating to boroughs or imposing upon them, the Minister ought to start his job of deciding for each borough how big it shall be without any shackles on his hands.
I do not regard it as a very valuable concession to say that he will merely make his tethering chain about a foot longer. He will do the job better without any tethering chain at all. There is no danger in it. No one supposes that, if the limit is removed, boroughs will ask for, or Ministers will grant, councils of an absurd and unwieldy size. What neither the Minister nor the Parliamentary Secretary has answered is the question, "Why is a fixed maximum needed?". We have had two reasons given, but neither is a reason of substance.
The Parliamentary Secretary said that local authority associations want it.

Mr. Corfield: Agreed to it.

Mr. Stewart: In that case, the hon. Gentleman's argument is even weaker.

Mr. Corfield: Perhaps I should make this clear. The initiative came from the Department. It was put to the associations, who agreed that this was sensible.

Mr. Stewart: Then it cannot be said that we shall in any way be displeasing the local authority associations if we take the fixed maximums out. My task is made a good deal easier. From what was said earlier, I thought that the associations positively wanted it. Apparently, they do not want it. The idea did not come from them. I do not think that the individual councils wanted it. There is not much in that reason which the hon. Gentleman gave.
The other argument advanced by the Parliamentary Secretary was his extraordinary argument about uniformity. He

compared what we want now with what we were asking for on the earlier Amendment. I ask him to consider, as a matter of logic and common sense, the nature of the analogy he was offering the Committee. On the last Amendment, we were arguing about the dignity and status of councils. Now, we are arguing about their size. Can it logically be said that, if we want all councils to be equal in dignity and status, we ought, therefore, to want them all to be equal in size? Obviously not. The underlying point is that there should be equal respect for all councils. In the last Amendment, we tried to give them equality and status. In this Amendment, we are trying to provide for every council the opportunity of achieving a size which will enable it to do its work best. The figure will vary from one to another.
Why should we shackle ourselves by saying, "Whatever the facts, whatever the evidence and whatever the arguments put forward at the inquiry, we can never go above 60 "? No real reason has been given as to why that shackle should be on. If the Minister is convinced that he should never go above a certain figure, he can enforce that administratively. There is no reason why he should tie himself in advance before he has had the maps and all the plans for drawing up the wards of the boroughs set before him, or for imposing this drawback on himself.
It is no answer to say that all this is based on experience. The metropolitan boroughs, provincial county boroughs, and other authorities have been quoted as examples which tend to point towards a figure of this kind. But it is not much good arguing from experience when one is introducing a Bill which creates a new kind of authority. We have never had borough authorities of this size in the Metropolis before. They have a status in the local government hierarchy that is unique, only a little lower than that of county boroughs. When giving boroughs of a size unfamiliar in the Metropolis a range of functions which is not exactly paralleled in local government, surely the reasonable course is to say, "When we are taking decisions about their size and constitution, we should not tie ourselves too rigidly in advance."
I have not taken part in official consultations about how boroughs should be


rearranged into wards, but, naturally, I have talked the matter over with a good many people who have experience of local government. We have looked at various boroughs and considered what would be a sensible division of them into wards if the Bill went through. I am sure that the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary realise that it is a very complicated matter. Exactly where should the boundaries be? What should be the size of each ward? If another condition of the puzzle is that the total must never be more than 60, that is not a very satisfactory arrangement. It makes the task more difficult and in no way increases the chance of obtaining a better administrative result.
For these reasons, I feel that the Amendment should be supported. If it were defeated, we should regard the Amendment of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) as better than the present arrangement, since if we must try to do an important job with a ball and chain round our leg there is something to be said for making the chain a little longer or the ball a little lighter. But that is all that the hon. Member's Amendment does.
If it is meant to be a paving Amendment for the abolition of aldermen, as I think the hon. Gentleman half suggested, some hon. Members on both sides will not regard that as a recommendation, and it will mean that we shall get back again to councils of about the maximum size that they will be under the Bill. It is not infrequent in local government for people to be first councillors, then aldermen and sometimes councillors again. This is quite frequent in the Metropolis. Aldermen have as much individual contact with the electors as councillors. I cannot feel very enthusiastic about the Amendment of the hon. Member for Orpington.
Why cannot the Minister accept my hon. Friend's Amendment? He has gone so far as to say that he will accept possibly the idea of a higher maximum, but let him cast his mind back on this debate and ask himself whether he, the Parliamentary Secretary, his hon. Friends or anyone on this side have produced a convincing reason why there should be a statutory maximum? This does not even give opportunity to deal with the growth of population. I think that I am

right in saying that there is no provision in the Bill for the Minister to raise the maximum by order, which, considering the number of powers he has taken in the Bill to do things by order, is remarkable. It would at least be something if he said that he will introduce a Clause in the Bill whereby he can vary the figure of 60 by administrative order and give himself permission to go above 60.
No one has given a convincing reason why there should be a fixed maximum. I do not think I misrepresent hon. Members opposite when I say that, although they welcomed the Minister's limited assurance, they have shown in their speeches that they do not believe that a fixed maximum of any kind is necessary or desirable. It is for my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) to decide, but that is why I feel that it would be right to press the Amendment to a Division, unless the Minister says that he will do what we all want him to do.
Cannot he say that he will accept the Amendment? Would the consequences be so dreadful? Are the people who wait for him at the Ministry so formidable and so determined to reduce the number of councillors? Are they so influenced by the offensive argument of the Royal Commission that councillors are a poor lot and, therefore, the fewer of them there are the greater the chances of there being 9ome possibility of improving the quality?
Does the right hon. Gentleman stand in so much awe of all that that he cannot stand up with his authority as a Minister and say, "I have heard a debate in which every Member who has spoken except myself and the Parliamentary Secretary has argued against the fixed maximum. Neither I nor the Parliamentary Secretary has produced any convincing reason why there should be a fixed maximium. Therefore, I am prepared to accept the arguments advanced and say that, although I shall not let the number of councillors grow to silly proportions and I still have my power in the rest of the Bill to determine the size of each counciil, I will not go into this job with an unnecessary shackle tied to my limbs."
The right hon. Gentleman has the opportunity to do that. If he does it,


he will earn the gratitude and admiration of hon. Members on both sides, which will stand him in good stead in later and more formidable parts of the Bill.

Mr. F. Harris: From the word "go" I have felt that the Bill is being imposed on us from the Department concerned. In spite of my right hon. Friend's reply, I appeal to him to take more note of the feeling of some of his hon. Friends.
7.15 p.m.
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary used facts which, with the greatest respect, were completely wrong. He did not seem to know his subject at all. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am very sorry, but these are the facts and those of us who feel deeply about local government are entitled to make these statements.
My hon. Friend took the population of one of the new Greater London boroughs similar to Croydon, with a population of 340,000. He divided it by the number of representatives which it would have, 60, and came to the figure of 5,600. But in a population of 340,000 one does not have 340,000 electors. One has a figure about 30 per cent. less. Further, my hon. Friend disregarded altogether the ward system.
Is it the Government's intention to do away with two or three representatives per ward? All this is most disturbing and it does not appear that the Government are thinking these matters out. I appeal strongly to them to understand that under their proposals the new Greater London boroughs will be entirely new features. They have not existed before. We in Croydon up to now have had 64 representatives, councillors and aldermen. Our population increases by about one-third. We are then told that we shall have 70 representatives. There is no sense in a restriction of this kind.
I am not in favour of a fixed number coming back into the Bill—for example, raising the number from 60 to 70 or from 70 to 80. Surely we should have enough confidence in local authorities to be able sensibly to decide how many representatives are needed and for the councils themselves, in discussion with the Minister, to come to that conclusion. It cannot be said that councils and represented bodies and those who give

their work in this way are not in a position to be able to arrive at a sensible figure for the representation that is needed for their area. Every area is different. Some areas are much larger than others and some are much more concentrated.
I sincerely hope that the Amendment, without a limitation, will be pressed. I shall certainly vote for it, because I definitely feel that a limitation should not be brought in.

Captain Litchfield: My right hon. Friend the Minister has made a remarkable concession during the debate for which his hon. Friends are extremely grateful. It would be helpful to his hon. Friends and would help them to put them out of their agony if he would accept the Amendment.
I cannot see that my right hon. Friend would give much more away by accepting the Amendment, because he would still retain ultimate power to decide whether to present a figure to the House. It would be a great help, without sacrificing anything in substance, if my right hon. Friend would accept the Amendment, which commits him to nothing.

Sir K. Joseph: I will try to explain to the Committee, and particularly to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelsea (Captain Litchfield), why a maximum is a matter of principle. The Government have embarked on a large-scale countrywide review of local authority boundaries and, in some cases, functions. This is not an operation that makes any Government deeply popular. It is conducted with one overriding objective: to improve the service of local government to the citizen.
Part of the underlying principle that the Government believe to be at stake here is what the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) and I were discussing across the Boxes just now, namely, that above all, councils should be policy-making bodies. I agree with the hon. Member for Fulham that that implies that individual councillors should be able to make sure, by constant personal contact with electors and constituents, that (a) the policy is right or should be changed and (b) the policy is being carried out properly. Of course, I accept and welcome that councillors have a great deal of contact with electors.
The Government stand, however, for a size of council that is not so large that policy-making becomes very difficult, and yet, obviously, not so small that the committees cannot be manned properly and the councillors cannot do their job with the electorate, in the council chamber and with the council officials. That is why I stick on a statutory maximum.
It is true that my successors, or the successors of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, where he is involved, will be able administratively to control the size of councils in response to warding schemes put forward by councils when seeking incorporation orders or variations of wardings. It is, however, for us, in the Bill, to set a principle or standard to show that we aim at councils of the sort of size which I have described. That is why I ask my hon. Friends, and particularly my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelsea, to realise that this is nothing capricious. There is a principle at stake.
I am willing to look again at the particular figure and to move towards the sort of size that hon. Members obviously have in mind, but it will, I hope, be understood that I still stick on the principle of a maximum.

Mr. Ede: This comparatively trivial Amendment has now become the vehicle for a declaration of national policy. Let us be in no doubt about that. Many of us suspected that this was a try-out, not merely to murder the London County Council, but for a scheme to be applied throughout the country. If we are to be told as we go on to the discussion of orders elsewhere that this principle of a maximum is to be regarded as an essential part of Government policy, let us be quite certain that there will be a great deal of trouble when efforts are made to apply this principle to some of the great corporations from whom statistics have been given this afternoon.

Sir K. Joseph: The right hon. Gentleman is going far further than is justified. I am talking about where, in the nature of things, new local authorities are created, as is happening here. I maintain that size has this aspect of principle about it. I was introducing

my remarks by saying that the Government would not have embarked upon this laborious policy of local government reform if they did not have views on which they must stand, not simply on this matter, but throughout the world of local government. In applying this policy to London government, we have to show that that means that we want a policy-making council and that its size should reflect that.

Mr. Ede: I want to see a policymaking council. I also want a policymaking Government. The speech of the Minister a few minutes ago was a declaration of policy, which he purposely and plainly linked with the wide task that he will have to undertake in the provinces when this Measure has been disposed of.
The whole of the argument in this debate, from speakers on the Government side as well as from critics on this side, was against fixing a maximum. The Minister is setting himself an impossible task to go into negotiation when the various articles of incorporation are drafted, when he will have to get down straight away to the problem of the number of wards and the number of councillors to be elected.
I hope that my hon. Friends will proceed to a Division on this matter so that we make it clear that on this issue, which the right hon. Gentleman has raised to the height of national principle and not of local convenience, we are against him on the whole of the argument that he has adduced to us.

Sir Leslie Plummer: I apologise to the Minister for not having heard the whole of his speech. I was called out by a constituent who has five children and who lives with his wife in two rooms and a kitchenette in a house in part of my constituency, and asks how long he must go on living in these dreadful conditions.
I was usurping the role of some of my constituent's local councillors. I have more time, perhaps, than they have and I was able to devote half an hour or forty minutes to the dreadful conditions in which this man and his wife and children are living. This is not a job that can be left to officials. It is not a job that a representative of the people, whether a councillor or a Member of Parliament, can delegate to somebody


else. These people want us, either as Members of Parliament or as councillors.
Every hon. Member has had sufficient experience of constituents coming to say that they cannot get anything or any satisfaction from the officials. They do not want to talk to those faceless people more than they have to. They want to talk to a member of the authority.
7.30 p.m.
What is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting? We have in my constituency a council composed of 36 councillors and half a dozen aldermen. When Deptford gets its shotgun marriage with Lewisham, Deptford will have 15 councillors or thereabouts, and 15 councillors are to do the work of 36 councillors and half a dozen aldermen. How are they to do it? They will have an immeasurable increase in work. They will have to have an even more active participating interest in the problems of house building in the constituency. They have to be responsible for health services in the constituency. They will have to put themselves out to an even greater degree than they do at present.
Really, the right hon. Gentleman does an injustice to councillors when he 'thinks they get any amusement or any pleasure. It is an unfortunate phrase, and I am glad the right hon. Gentleman does not want to repeat it. But that here is no particular pleasure or happiness in having to deal with the suffering and misery of people who find themselves in conditions which are bad through no fault of their own.
Now what is to happen? I understand that Lewisham Borough Council has about 45 members. Deptford has a council of about 40. This total of about 80 is to be reduced to something like 60 under the Bill, and this, says the right hon. Gentleman, is a matter of principle. As a matter of principle, may I ask what is to happen to the 200 members of the City of London Corporation? [HON. MEMBERS: "Policy makers."] Are they to have more to do? My hon. Friends say they are policy makers.

Mr. Mellish: Hypocrites.

Sir L. Plummer: Are they to be reduced to fewer than 200—to 60?

Mr. Mellish: Certainly not.

Sir L. Plummer: Will there be only 60 of them? I very much doubt whether this Government will go to the members of the Court of Common Council of the City of London and say, "You are to come down to 60". There will be an exemption made for the burgesses there, while in constituencies and areas such as that which I represent there are to be fewer councillors doing more work.

Mr. Mellish: I was given 'this figure only the other day, and it comes from the Registrar General's office, and in the area of which my hon. Friend is talking the population is expected by 1970 to go up to about 400,000.

Sir L. Plummer: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for helping me to make my speech. He always improves my speech with every intervention he makes. He has thoroughly succeeded in breaking my train of thought which I was following, but nevertheless he has added considerably to my argument.
How are the representatives of the local authority to take on more Work with fewer people to carry the burden? "Ah," says the right hon. Gentleman, "they must leave it to the officials". Why should they leave it to the officials? How are they to leave it to the officials? In most of the London boroughs most of the councillors work all day long and they devote their evenings to their civic efforts. Are they to keep the staffs waiting for them every night? Of course they will not. They will have to go round the constituency, tramping round the wards, carrying a burden which will really be too much for them.
I beg the right hon. Gentleman, if he really believes that the purpose of the Bill, and the Government's purpose, too, is to improve the lot of the citizen under local government—if this is the prime purpose of it—really to think again, and to think in terms of making local government available to the citizen more readily, and not barring him from it, as will happen in the proposed circumstances.

Mr. Pavitt: I do not want to delay the Committee much longer, but I am extremely concerned with the final words of the Parliamentary Secretary. He made it clear that he does not want the Bill to be altered in any way. It seems to me


that of all the Amendments which we shall be facing for two days on the Floor of this Chamber, and certainly of all those which will face us in Committee upstairs, this is the one where we are actually giving something to the Government, and if the Government cannot see their way clear to taking what we offer, then it seems to me that when we get to the far more controversial issues it will be extremely difficult to get the Bill through.
I therefore ask, in view of what every hon. Member has said, that the Minister should accept the higher figure as proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart). My right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) effectively exploded the idea that there is a principle attached to this Clause or to the Minister's figures. Is seems to me that 'the Minister is simply digging in his toes out of obstinacy.

Mr. Michael Cliffe: I fail to understand why there is such insistence on this figure of 60, when one considers that the purpose of the Bill is, as we are told it is, that we are to have enlarged local authorities which are to take on further and more responsibility. If that is so it will be necessary to have not only the right type of people as councillors, but to have the necessary number of councillors to undertake the amount of work they will be expected to do.
Consider the proposals affecting Islington and Finsbury and their amalgamation. There are at present 66 representatives for Islington and 38 for Finsbury. I have very little knowledge of what is taking place in Islington, but I do know a good deal of what is taking place in Finsbury and I can say sincerely that the 38 members of the Council are kept very busy indeed. The housing committee has not merely one meeting a month to consider whether or not to have a slum clearance scheme. It has to consider let-

tings, and it is responsible for the building section, and it meets regularly three or four times a month, apart from two meetings at which it has to consider various aspects of the housing work.

There are people with housing problems, and it is not good enough to say that as long as we have officials people can go along to the town hall and simply put their problems to them, for their answer will not be the sort of answer we feel ought to be given. It will be rather cold and calculating, such as, "You have not got a chance," and that sort of thing. There is a responsibility on the elected representatives at least to afford opportunity to the electorate to see them, in the event of their wanting to do so.

In view of the fact that it is proposed that so much more work is to be undertaken by these enlarged local authorities I honestly think that to set the figure of 60 is hardly fair to the elected representatives who will be on the new, enlarged local authorities. I do not for the life of me see what my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) has said to lead anywhere to these difficulties. The local authorities have to apply to the Minister or to the Home Secretary if they want to increase their numbers. If they were to ask for a number which might be considered unreasonable, control is still in the hands of the Minister.

I hope that the Minister will agree that the people sitting on local authorities are responsible people and will not ask for numbers larger than are genuinely considered necessary for the carrying out of public responsibility in the best interests of those they represent.

Question put, That the words proposed words to be left out, to the end of line 20, stand part of the Clause:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 222, Noes 194.

Division No. 25.]
AYES
[7.41 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Braine, Bernard


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Brewis, John


Allason, James
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter


Atkins, Humphrey
Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry


Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)
Bidgood, John C.
Brown, Alan (Tottenham)


Balniel, Lord
Bishop, F. P.
Buck, Antony


Barber, Anthony
Bourne-Arton, A.
Bullard, Denys


Barter, John
Box, Donald
Burden, F. A.


Batsford, Brian
Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward
Butcher, Sir Herbert




Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Holland, Philip
Pitman, Sir James


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Hollingworth, John
Pitt, Dame Edith


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Hopkins, Alan
Pott, Percivall


Cary, Sir Robert
Hornby, R. P.
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch


Channon, H. P. G.
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Chataway, Christopher
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Hughes-Young, Michael
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Clarke, Brig. Terence(Portsmth, W.)
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Pym, Francis


Cleaver, Leonard
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Cooke, Robert
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Rawlinson, Sir Peter


Cooper, A. E,
James, David
Redmayne, Rt, Hon. Martin


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Ronton, Rt. Hon. David


Corfield, F. V.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Coulson, Michael
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Robson Brown, Sir William


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Roots, William


Craddock, Sir Berestord (Spelthorns)
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S)
Ropner, Col. sir Leonard


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith
St. Clair, M.


Crowder, F. P.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Scott-Hopkins, James


Curran, Charles
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Seymour, Leslie


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kitson, Timothy
Shaw, M.


Dance, James
Lagden, Godfrey
Shepherd, William


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Skeet, T. H. H.


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Leavey, J. A.
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Drayson, G.B.
Leburn, Gilmour
Stanley, Hon. Richard


du Cann, Edward
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Stevens, Geoffrey


Duncan, Sir James
Lilley, F. J. p.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Longbottom, Charles
Stodart, J. A.



Loveys, Walter H.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Elliott, R.W. (Nwcastle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Studholme, Sir Henry


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Summers, Sir Spencer


Farey-Jones, F. W,
Mac Arthur, Ian
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Fisher, Nigel
McLaren, Martin
Taylor Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)


Foster, John
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Teeling, Sir William


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute&amp;N. Ayrs)
Temple, John M.


Gammans, Lady
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, w.)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Gardner, Edward
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)


Gibson-Watt, David
McMaster, Stanley R.
Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Macpherson, Rt.Hn. Niall (Dumfries)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Glover, Sir Douglas
Mcginnis, John E.
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Markham, Major sir Frank
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Goodhart, Philip
Marshall, Douglas
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Cordon


Gough, Frederick
Marten, Neil
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Grant-Ferris, R.
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
van Straubenzee W. R.


Green, Alan
Mawby, Ray
Vane, W. M. F.


Gresham Cooke, R.
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Vickers, Miss Joan


Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell


Gurden, Harold
Mills, Stratton
Walder, David


Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Walker, Peter



Morgan, William
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Morrison, John
Wall, Patrick


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Ward, Dame Irene


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Neave, Alrey
Webster, David


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Hastings, Stephen
Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Hay, John
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Wise, A. R.


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Page, Graham, (Crosby)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Hendry, Forbes
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Woodhouse, C. M.


Hiley, Joseph
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Woodnutt, Mark


Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Partridge, E.
Woollam, John


Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)



Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Peel, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hirst, Geoffrey
Percival, Ian
Mr. Chichester-Clark and


Hocking, Philip N.
Pilkington, Sir Richard
Mr. Rees.




NOES


Abee, Leo
Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics, S.W.)
Crosland, Anthony


Ainsley, William
Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Cullen, Mrs. Alice


Albu, Austen
Boyden, James
Dalyell, Tarn


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Bradley, Tom
Davies, Harold (Leek)


Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central)
Brockway, A. Fenner
Deer, George


Beaney, Alan
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Delargy, Hugh


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Dempsey, James


Bence, Cyril
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Diamond, John


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Carmichael, Nell
Dodds, Norman


Benson, Sir George
Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Donnelly, Desmond


Blackburn, F.
Chapman, Donald
Driberg, Tom


Blyton, William
Cliffe, Michael
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John


Boardman, H.
Collick, Percy
Ede, Rt. Hon. C.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)







Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
King, Dr. Horace
Reynolds, G. W.


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Lawson, George
Rhodes, H.


Evans, Albert
Ledger, Ron
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Fernyhough, E.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Fitch, Alan
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Fletcher, Eric
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
Lipton, Marcus
Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Loughlin, Charles
Ross, William


Forman, J. C.
Lubbock, Eric
Royle, Charles (Salford, West)



McCann, John
Russell, Ronald


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
MacColl, James
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Galpern, Sir Myer
McInnes, James
Short, Edward


George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Ginsburg, David
Mackie, John (Enfield, East)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
McLeavy, Frank
Skeffington, Arthur


Gourlay, Harry
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke N.)


Greenwood, Anthony
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Small, William


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Manuel, Archie
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Mapp, Charles
Snow, Julian


Gunter, Ray
Marsh, Richard
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Mason, Roy
Spriggs, Leslie


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Mellish, R. J.
Steele, Thomas


Hannan, William
Millan, Bruce
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Harper, Joseph
Milne, Edward
Stonehouse John


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Mitchison, G. R.
Stones, William


Herbison, Miss Margaret
Moody, A. S.
Swain, Thomas


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Morris, John
Symonds, J. B.


Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Moyle, Arthur
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Hilton, A. V.
Neal, Harold
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)



Noel-Baker, Rt.Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Holman, Percy
Oliver, G. H.
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Holt, Arthur
Oram, A. E.
Thornton, Ernest


Hooson, H, E.
Oswald, Thomas
Thorpe, Jeremy


Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)
Padley, W. E.
Timmons, John


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Paget, R. T.
Wainwright, Edwin


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Warbey, William


Hunter, A. E.
Parker, John
Weitzman David


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Parkin, B. T.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Pavitt, Laurence
White, Mrs. Eirene


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Whitlock, William


Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Peart, Frederick
Wilkins, W. A.


Janner, Sir Barnett
Pentland, Norman
Willey, Frederick


Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)


Jones, Rt. Hn. Creech (Wakefield)
Popplewell, Ernest
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Prentice, R. E.
Willis E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, s.)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Winterbottom, R. E.


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Probert, Arthur
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Kelley, Richard
Rankin, John



Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Redhead, E. C.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Ifor Davios and Mr. Grey.

Amendment proposed: In page 2, line 21, leave out "sixty" and insert "seventy".—[Mr. Lubbock.]

Question put, That "sixty" stand part of the Clause:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 218, Noes 192.

Division No. 26.]
AYES
[7.50 p.m


Agnew, Sir Peter
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Crowder, F. P.


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Curran, Charles


Allason, James
Buck, Antony
Dalkeith, Earl of


Atkins, Humphrey
Bullard, Denys
Dance, James


Balniel, Lord
Burden, F. A.
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry


Barber, Anthony
Butcher, Sir Herbert
Digby, Simon Wingfield


Barter, John
Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.


Batsford, Brian
Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Doughty, Charles


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Drayson, G. B.


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Cary, Sir Robert
du Cann, Edward


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Duncan, Sir James


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)


Bidgood, John C.
Clarke, Brig. Terence(Portsmth, W.)
Elliott, R.W. (Nwcastle-upon-Tyne, N.)




Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn


Bishop, F. P.
Cleaver, Leonard
Farey-Jones, F. W.


Bossom, Hon. Clive
Cooper, A. E.
Finlay, Graeme


Bourne-Arton, A.
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Fisher, Nigel


Box, Donald
Corfield, F. V.
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward
Coulson, Michael
Foster, John


Braine, Bernard
Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)


Brewis, John
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Gammans, Lady


Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.8irWalter
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Gardner, Edward




Gibson-Watt, David
Litchfield, Capt. John
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Longbottom, Charles
Ronson Brown, Sir William


Glover, Sir Douglas
Loveys, Walter H.
Roots, William


Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Scott-Hopkins, James


Goodhart, Philip
MacArthur, Ian
Seymour, Leslie


Cough, Frederick
McLaren, Martin
Shaw, M.


Grant-Ferris, R.
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Skeet, T. H. H.


Green, Alan
Maclay, Rr. Hon. John
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Greaham Cooke, R.
Macleod, Rt, Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher


Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Gurden, Harold
McMaster, Stanley, R.
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Macpherson. Rt. Hn. Niall (Dumfries)
Stevens, Geoffrey


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Maginnis, John E.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Markham, Major Sir Frank



Harvie Anderson, Miss
Marshall, Douglas
Stodart, J. A.


Hastings, Stephen
Marten, Nell
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Studholme, Sir Henry


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Mawby, Ray
Summers, Sir Spencer


Hendry, Forbes
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Hiley, Joseph
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Mills, Stratton
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)


Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawa)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Teeling, Sir William


Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfok)
Morgan, William
Temple, John M.


Hirst, Geoffrey
Morrison, John
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Hocking, Philip N.
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)


Holland, Philip
Neave, Alrey
Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)


Hollingworth, John
Nicholls, Sir Hartnar
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Hopkins, Alan
Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Hornby, R. P.
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Page, Graham (Crosby)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Hughes-Young, Michael
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Vane, W. M. F.


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Partridge, E.
Vickers, Miss Joan


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Wakefield, Sir Waved


James, David
Peel, John
Walder, David


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Percival, Ian
Walker, Peter


Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)




Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Pilkington, Sir Richard
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek


Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Pitman, Sir James
Wall, Patrick


Jones, Arthur (Northants, S)
Pitt, Dame Edith
Ward, Dame Irene


Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith
Pott, Percivall
Webster, David


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Williams, Dudley (Exe'er)


Kitson, Timothy
Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Lagden, Godfrey
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Wise, A. R.


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Pym, Francis
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Woodhouse, C. M.


Leavey, J. A.
Rawlinson, Sir Peter
WooHnutt, Mark


Leburn, Gllmour
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Woollam, John


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Ronton, Rt. Hon. David



Lilley, F. J. P.
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Chichester-Clark and Mr. Rees.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)


Ainsley, William
Crosland, Anthony
Ginsburg, David


Albu, Austen
Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Dalyell, Tam
Gourlay, Harry


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Greenwood, Anthony


Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central)
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Grey, Charles


Beaney, Alan
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Deer, George
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)


Bence, Cyril
Delargy, Hugh
Griffiths, W. (Exchange)


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Dempsey, James
Gunter, Ray


Benson, Sir George
Diamond, John
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)


Blackburn, F.
Dodds, Norman
Hamilton, William (West Fife)


Blyton, William
Donnelly, Desmond
Hannan, William


Boardman, H.
Driberg, Tom
Harper, Joseph


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. (Leics., S.W.)
Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Herbison, Miss Margaret


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Hewitson, Capt. M.


Boyden, James
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Hill, J. (Midlothian)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Hilton, A. V.


Bradley, Tom
Evans, Albert
Holman, Percy


Brockway, A. Fenner
Fernyhough, E.
Hooson, H. E.


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Fitch, Alan
Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Fletcher, Eric
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Carmichael, Nell
Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Hunter, A. E.


Chapman, Donald
Forman, J. C.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)


Cliffe, Michael
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Hynd, John (Atterclife)


Collick, Percy
Galpern, Sir Myer
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)







Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Neal, Harold
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Janner, Sir Burnett
Noel-Baker, Rt.Hn. Phillip (Derby, S.)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Oliver, G. H.
Small, William


Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Oram, A. E.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Oswald, Thomas
Snow, Julian


Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Padley, W. E.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Paget, R. T.
Spriggs, Leslie


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Steele, Thomas


Kelley, Richard
Parker, John
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Parkin, B. T.
Stonehouse, John


King, Dr. Horace
Pavitt, Laurence
Stones, William


Lawson, George
Pearson, Arthur (Pontyprfdd)
Swain, Thomas


Ledger, Ron
Peart, Frederick
Symonds, J. B.


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Pentland, Norman



Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Popplewell, Ernest
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Lipton, Marcus
Prentice, R. E.
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Loughlin, Charles
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


McCann, John
Probert, Arthur
Thornton, Ernest


MacColl, James
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Thorpe, Jeremy


McInnes, James
Rankin, John
Timmons, John


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Redhead, E. C.
Wainwright, Edwin


Mackie, John (Enfield, East)
Reynolds, C. W.
Warbey, William


McLeavy, Frank
Rhodes, H.
Weitzman, David


MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
White, Mrs. Elrene


Mallaliue, E. L. (Brigg)
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Whitlock, William


Manuel, Archie
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Wilkins, W. A.


Mapp, Charles
Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)
Willey, Frederick


Marsh, Richard
Ross, William
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)


Mason, Roy
Royle, Charles (Salford, West)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Mellish, R. J.
Russell, Ronald
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E)


Millan, Bruce
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Winterbottom, R. E.


Milne, Edward
Short, Edward
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Mitchison, G. R.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Moody, A. S.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)



Morris, John
Skeffington, Arthur
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Holt and Mr. Lubbock.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move, in page 2, line 23, to leave out from the beginning to the end of line 30 and to insert:
a group of ten or more local government electors living in the area of the proposed London borough shall have the right to make representations to the Secretary of State about the provisions of the incorporation order, and the Secretary of State if satisfied that there is a prima facie case for an alteration of the provisions of the order may cause a local inquiry to be made, and such notice given as he thinks expedient, and if satisfied that such alteration is desirable may amend the order accordingly.
This Amendment, like that in line 18, deals with another case in which the rights and opportunities of the ordinary citizen are being diminished by the Bill. In the previous Amendments we were concerned with the number of representatives; in this case we are concerned with the opportunities and rights of an ordinary citizen to have some say in the distribution of wards, and in matters which are the subject of incorporation orders.
We have to consider the Amendment against the background of disadvantage to which the citizens of the Greater London area are already subject as a

result of the Bill. Earlier, the Minister referred to the fact that the Government are involved in a nation-wide review of local government areas aimed at making more effective local government for the ordinary citizen. I am encouraged by that remark in moving this Amendment, for at the outset the citizens in the Greater London area already suffer some disadvantage as a result of the Bill as compared with citizens of the rest of the country.
I do not know why, in this matter, they should be regarded as being rather second-class citizens. When a local government commission is at work outside the London review area—according to the memorandum issued by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government—it must first serve public notice of its intention to review, followed at a reasonable interval by consultations with all the local authorities in the area and with other bodies. It is important that other bodies, that is bodies other than local authorities, should have some say about the area in which they are to live. Then, having had these consultations, the commission is required to prepare draft proposals whether for


changing or preserving the existing boundaries and functions. These proposals must be put to the local authorities and other bodies who have been consulted, and made available for public inspection.
Finally, the commission must confer with all interested local authorities and other bodies before its final proposals and its report on the review are formulated for submission to the Minister.
So at least two or three opportunities for consultation are open to local authorities and the ordinary citizen through political parties, civic associations or other bodies that may be considered by the local government commission as having some status and connection with the area. After the final report of the local government commission for the area has been forwarded to the Minister, he examines it, and if he alters it and sends it back to the area notices again have to be given and an opportunity afforded to those interested to make further representation in connection with the new or revised plan.
In London, the citizens have no such opportunities. What they have is the Royal Commission which produced this Report. We have had two debates in the House—a debate on the Royal Commission's White Paper and a debate on the Bill. We have had the visit of the four town clerks, but as far as I know this has been a semi-secret mission. I do not know any local body other than a council which was invited to make representations. These were largely consultations with the local authorities concerned. I have no objection to that, but in my view this operation must not be one which leaves out of account the rights and feelings of the ordinary citizen. I mention this background because it makes the Amendment all the more relevant and important.
In consultation with local authorities the Minister will now decide the matters in Part III of the Schedule—the way in which the wards are to be distributed, and so on. But in a sense the ultimate responsibility is with the Minister, and again the ordinary citizen is losing what he has hitherto had in London and what he certainly has outside London—the right to make direct representations. The Amendment seeks to give the ordi-

nary citizen some opportunity to make his representations before the incorporation orders.
In London he has certain rights, both under the 1933 Act and the London Government Act of 1939. In Section 25 (3) of the 1933 Act—the fundamental Act, where a petition, other than one produced by the local council, is presented, after certain procedures the matter can be considered by the Home Secretary. In certain cases he may decide that there should be an inquiry, and he then appoints a commissioner. Apart from local authorities, ordinary people, political associations and anybody else have the right, if a reasonable case has been made out, to have an inquiry held. These provisions are incorporated in Section 25 of the London Government Act, 1939. Subsection (2), which I have incorporated in the Amendment, refers to the Secretary of State's being satisfied that there is a prima facie case for an alteration. This case can be presented not only by the council but by any citizen or group of citizens.
The kind of opportunity that has hitherto happened, and is now provided for in the future only in the Schedule and not in the Clause, is exemplified by what happened some years ago in the case of-the Borough of Camberwell. In that case the Conservative minority felt that there should be a re-warding, many years having passed since the borough was first warded. The Labour majority thought otherwise, but a group of citizens—not all councillors—sent a memorandum to the Home Secretary. He felt that there was a prima facie case. There was an inquiry and, as a result, the local council brought forward a scheme which became the ward reorganisation scheme for Camberwell. Ordinary citizens were given an opportunity to ensure the holding of an inquiry and to make representations. Some of them happened to be councillors, but others were not. They set on foot an alteration in the local government area in which they resided—an alteration which was ultimately felt to be more in keeping with contemporary conditions.
Apparently, Part III of the First Schedule gives the citizen some rights It says:
If at any time the Secretary of State is satisfied as respects any London borough,


whether on representations made to him by the council of the borough or otherwise, that there are sufficient grounds for considering an alteration
of various kinds in the wards and the number of councillors themselves, he can cause notice to be given, and in due course an inquiry can be held.
The Amendment seeks, first, to put this important right in the main part of the Bill and not merely in the Schedule. This gives it greater importance. More people are likely to know of that right than would be the case if it were to remain tucked away in the Schedule. But an even more important point about the Amendment is that it will also give citizens the right to say something before the incorporating orders are made. That is a particularly important point, which not only safeguards the future right of citizens but gives them a present right, before the orders become incorporated.
The Amendment provides that any ten citizens or local government electors should have this right. It indicates that people must have had some local status. If a more appropriate formula can be devised I shall be quite happy. But I want to establish the principle that ordinary citizens should have some say if they establish that there is a prima faciecase for change in respect of some of the matters which will in this case be the subject matter of the order.
There are only two other points which I need to make regarding this Amendment. It suggests that the Ministry responsible should be the Home Office. I do not know whether, by the terms of the Amendment, I have taken away some right which it is essential that the Ministry of Housing and Local Government should have in connection with other parts of the Clause. I realise that this may be so and I should, of course, be perfectly prepared, were an undertaking given, to withdraw this Amendment or to move a subsequent Amendment to put the matter right. But regarding these inquiries, I wish to ensure that the Home Office is responsible. That is the Department which has always done this sort of work and those involved have great experience.
I have appeared, both personally and in a professional capacity, before inquiries held by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and

also by the Home Office, and on the whole I believe that those conducted by the Home Office are more satisfactory. One reason is the Home Office nearly always appoints someone from outside to conduct the inquiry which provokes a greater sense of confidence than would be the case were an officer from the Department to conduct the inquiry, however well-intentioned that officer might be. So, therefore, I wish to ensure that these inquiries should be conducted by the Home Office which has traditionally done this work and done it very well.
Were this Amendment accepted it would delete the section of Clause 1 to the effect that the expenses should be paid by the boroughs. If citizens are performing what ought to be a duty, I cannot see why the local ratepayers should be penalised. The expanses would not be very large and, as the matter overall is one which affects local government and as the Minister has said that it is the aim of the Bill to improve local government, the Government ought to be prepared to meet the moderate cost involved. Therefore, the Home Office would have to bear the expenses which would not be great.
I consider the right of the ordinary person to cause a change, and not merely a local authority, is important and should be preserved in the main part of the Bill and not be dealt with in a Schedule to the Bill. I want all the citizens to have this right because citizens in the Greater London area have not had up till now the right which has been enjoyed by citizens in the review areas.

Mr. David Weitzman: I hesitate to add anything further to this debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) has moved his Amendment so clearly and it is so obviously an Amendment which ought to be accepted that I expected the Parliamentary Secretary to say immediately that he had no answer to the arguments advanced and was prepared to accept the Amendment. I have been studying what is stated in subsection (3):
Before a London borough's incorporation order is made, the Minister or, as may be appropriate, the Secretary of State shall cause such notices to be given and such, if any, inquiries to be held with respect to the matters


to be dealt with by the order as may appear to the Minister or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State to be expedient …
8.15 p.m.
I assume that, translated into ordinary English, it means that we are absolutely in the power of the Minister and that it is within the absolute discretion of the right hon. Gentleman whether he orders an inquiry of any shape or pattern to be held. No one can demand an inquiry or compel the Minister to hold one. There is no real point in making representations.
This Amendment is so obviously one which ought to be made that it ought to be accepted immediately. After all, the ordinary citizen has some rights. We have not yet reached the stage where a Minister is a complete dictator. Citizens are entitled to make representations regarding the borough in which they live and I should have thought the first thing to do would be to encourage citizens to show an interest in their borough.

Mr. A. Lewis: I agree with my hon. and learned Friend. But is he not aware that the Government are powerless to do that because they cannot even get two or three of their supporters to remain in the Chamber to listen to this debate? There has been only one hon. Member on the back benches opposite during the whole of the debate and he remained there for only about five minutes. Now, for the first time, there are three Ministers on the Government Front Bench. If the Government cannot persuade their supporters in this House to take an interest in the Bill they cannot expect to persuade people outside to take an interest.

Mr. Weitzman: One recognises—as I am sure the Minister will recognise, now that he has graced the Chamber with his presence—the force of what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. A. Lewis). It is remarkable, when we are discussing a Bill of this importance, which is so studded with principle as we were told a few moments ago by the Minister, that only one hon. Member opposite should be present in the Chamber.
However, I return to the theme of the Amendment. I am glad to see that the Minister is present because I am sure that he will accept what I said a few

minutes ago. I read the words of subsection (3) and I hope I have interpreted them reasonably. They amount to the fact that the Minister in his discretion may make an incorporation order without holding any inquiry. We are absolutely in the power of the Minister.
I was saying that it seems Obvious justice that when a change of some kind is to be made, and an incorporation order is being made to deal with extremely important powers which may well affect all the citizens in a borough, those citizens should be given an opportunity to make representations. I support this Amendment which proposes that a group of ten or more local government electors who live in the area should have the right to make representations about provisions in an order. Then it is suggested that if the Secretary of State is satisfied that there is a prima faciecase he may cause a local inquiry to be made. What possible objection can there be to that provision? I have tried to think of arguments which might be advanced against it. It may be because I am stupid, or because of my mental inability, but I cannot think of any arguments or any answer which could be made to the suggestion that citizens should be given the opportunity to make representations and, if a prima faciecase is made out, that an inquiry should be held.
My hon. Friend pointed out that even the Government themselves recognised the justice of this Amendment by having a provision inserted in the Schedule where the power is given after the order has been made. If the power is given after the order has been made, why should it not be given before the order is made? Again I do not know. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister, if he is gracious enough to answer, will give us a reply on this matter. I cannot see why an Amendment of this kind, which on the face of it merely gives certain rights which obviously should belong to the citizen, should not be accepted. I hope, in spite of the fact that as a rule the Government plead that always they are so reasonable but they never give in, they will see the light on this occasion and accept the Amendment.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: I support the reasonable and useful suggestion contained in this Amendment. I


hope that because the three hon. Members who have so far spoken on it are all lawyers the Committee will not have an unwarranted suspicion that lawyers have an interest in proliferating public inquiries. That would be a completely unworthy suggestion.
The true explanation of the desire to make this Amendment is to involve the ordinary citizen at a very early stage in these important changes and give him the right to make his objections heard. It is not an Amendment, the Committee will notice, which requires the setting up of a local inquiry in all cases. It is a most responsible Amendment. The Committee will see that the machinery proposed is that the electors concerned, 10 or more, shall have the right to make representations. Even if the representations are made, the mere fact of making the representations will not automatically result in an inquiry being ordered for there is the following provision that the Secretary of State must be satisfied that there is a prima facie case for an alteration of the provisions of the order before he causes a local inquiry to be made.
I am not very much wedded to the words "if satisfied", because it has been frequently held that there is no power to go behind the decision of the Secretary of State when he has power to do certain things "if satisfied", but at any rate it is better than the contents of the Clause itself as it stands. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) has pointed out, it gives no right of inquiry at all, however deserving the case. It is left entirely at the discretion of the Secretary of State, or the Minister as the case may be, whether an inquiry is to be held.
The sole criterion is whether it appears, or may appear, to the Minister or the Secretary of State to be expedient for an inquiry to be held. As I see it, there are no grounds in the Clause as it stands to compel the Minister in any circumstances to hold an inquiry. The words of the proposed Amendment do at any rate bring forward quite firmly the proposition that affected electors have the right to make representations. That seems very important. The right to make representations is one which certainly is not expressly stated as part of the machinery of the great changes

that are proposed. There is a very great danger in failure to consult with the ordinary man in the street and to have his knowing and satisfied support behind these great changes.
The practice of holding public inquiries has become part of our democratic system. It is an important part. It not only gives an opportunity for the letting off of steam, but it gives an opportunity for any administrative decision which might result in grave public inconvenience to be exposed. One can think of many circumstances where the granting and assertion of this right could be of very great value indeed with regard to these great changes in local government. One of the difficulties about the operation of local government is the lack of public interest and excitement in it. It is something which it is our duty to foster. The granting, at the very outset of the introduction of these great changes, of the right to make representations and the requiring of the Ministers concerned to consider those representations, is something of value.
Only the Minister who is afraid of the weapon of a public inquiry will oppose this reasonable Amendment. I should hate to attribute such callow fears to the members of the Government Front Bench, but they may well have a great deal to hide about some of these proposals. Therefore, it seems that the public interest will be served by quite firmly stating, as this most reasonable and responsible Amendment does, that there shall be a right to make representations, there shall be a duty—if 10 or more electors make such representations—on the part of the Ministers concerned to consider those representations with care and then, if it is found that a prima facie case exists for an alteration of the provisions of the order that a local inquiry should be held.
I am not going to enter into the comparative merits of whether these inquiries are best conducted by the Home Office or the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. I personally have no complaint about the conduct of either since certain recent substantial changes in procedures, and so on, were introduced, but that the costs of such inquiries should, as is suggested in the Clause as it stands, be borne by the


council, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington), would be something of a hardship on local ratepayers and local authorities. I agree with him that when great democratic changes of this kind are introduced it is perfectly proper that the expenses resulting from public inquiries in the carrying out of those changes should be borne by the Exchequer.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. W. R. Williams): Order. I hope that the hon. and learned Member will excuse me. It seems that it might be more appropriate to deal with the expenses side on the Amendment which is to follow. I excused the mover of the Amendment because I had not then put the Question in the form in which I had to put it. It seems quite clear now that that ought to be discussed on the next Amendment.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: Thank you, Mr. Williams. I was misled by the zeal of my hon. Friend into pursuing matters which we shall enter into in greater detail when the time comes.
Although I have no confidence that Ministers opposite will be influenced by reasonableness—in that I differ from my hon. and learned Friend—nevertheless I invite their reconsideration of this matter and their acceptance of this most useful and practical suggestion.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I support the Amendment wholeheartedly. When I was Secretary of State I had on occasion brought to my notice boroughs in which wards had been fixed many years before and which had remained unaltered although the distribution of the electorate proportionally between the wards had very considerably changed as a result of the passage of time and the creation of new residential areas in a borough.
One of the difficulties in those circumstances is to get the machine to start working. Local authorities are, quite rightly, resentful if a Minister, whether he be the Secretary of State or the Minister of Housing and Local Government, makes the suggestion to them that they have not been doing justice between one group of citizens and another. I wholeheartedly support, therefore, this right of ten local government electors to get the machine started.
The curious thing is that when an urban district becomes a borough, the electors lose the right of initiative which they have enjoyed while they have been living in an urban district. There they approach the county council to ask either that the district be divided into wards or that the wards be altered, and if the county council thinks that a prima facie case has been made out, it appoints a small number of its members to hold an inquiry and to make such recommendations as they think fit to the county council. If these are accepted by the county council or are accepted with amendment by the county council, the whole process is gone through quite expeditiously and economically. I therefore welcome this application of that principle. It was one of the things which I had noted to be dealt with if in my period of office the issue had ever arisen in legislation.
It is out of date that the electors should not have the power of initiation in matters such as this. I sincerely hope that the Government will accept the part of the Amendment which we are allowed to discuss at this stage. After all, it would be some proof that the Minister, when he is faced with a thoroughly good case, can give way and will not ask us to accept the view that whoever drafted the Bill was acting under divine inspiration, for I find very little sign of that except in the Minister's mind.

The Temporary Chairman: Mr. Woodhouse.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. C. M. Wood-house): Perhaps I might intervene out of courtesy to the Committee.

Mr. A. Lewis: rose—

Mr. Woodhouse: I thought that you called me, Mr. Williams, but if I am mistaken I will gladly give way to the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. A. Lewis).

The Temporary Chairman: The Minister rose and I called the Minister, but if he prefers to give way I will call the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. A. Lewis).

Mr. Lewis: Perhaps I can solve the problem by calling a count.

The Temporary Chairman: We cannot solve any problem when two hon. Members are on their feet together.

Mr. Lewis: On a point of order. I was about to start my remarks by calling attention to the fact that we have not 40 Members present.

The Temporary Chairman: We have had a Division so recently that I cannot accept any proposition to that effect.

Mr. Lewis: On a point of order.

The Temporary Chairman: Is it another point of order? If it is the same point of order, I have ruled on it and there is no more to be said about it.

Mr. Lewis: On a point of explanation.

The Temporary Chairman: There is no question of explanation. It must be order or nothing. I have ruled that the first point which the hon. Member made is not a point of order. If he has another point of order, I am prepared to listen to it.

Mr. Lewis: This is another point of order. Will you explain to me, Mr. Williams, why a count cannot take place? According to the Standing Orders, after 8.30 p.m. it is permitted.

The Temporary Chairman: I satisfied myself in a recent Division that there are more than 40 Members available and, therefore, I am acting on precedent.

Mr. Lewis: I am sorry to press this, but I have previously called counts after 8.30 p.m. when there has earlier been a Division within minutes, and Mr. Speaker and Mr. Deputy-Speaker have accepted that proposition. I took the trouble of looking up the Standing Order before rising to my feet to see whether such a proposal was in order. If I may, with great respect, Mr. Williams, refer you to the Standing Order, it makes no reference to whether there was a Division or whether Mr. Speaker or Mr. Deputy-Speaker was or was not aware of the numbers present in the Division. If attention is called to the fact that there are not more than 40 Members in the Chamber, surely it is in order to have a count. With great respect, there are not 40 Members present.

The Temporary Chairman: I am sorry to disagree with the hon. Member, but I am not responsible for what Mr.

Speaker does or what Mr. Deputy-Speaker does. All I am responsible for is to rule here when I happen to be in the Chair. There is ample precedent for the Ruling which I have given. Mr. Woodhouse.

Mr. Woodhouse: I intended no discourtesy in intervening at this point, but I thought that I might be able to help by clearing up one or two matters on which I thought there might have been a misunderstanding. If I am wrong in that assumption there is every opportunity to continue the debate.
The very amiable way in which the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) moved the Amendment, and the way in which he was supported by the hon. and learned Members for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) and West Ham, South (Mr. Elwyn Jones) left me feeling a little less like the boy on the burning deck than was perhaps my hon. Friend who replied to the previous Amendment.
I should like to begin by returning to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) the compliment which he paid the Home Office, because I know very well how helpful he has been in these matters to the Home Office in the time of the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) as well as more recently. I am grateful to him for providing me the opportunity, by moving the Amendment, to give a fuller explanation of the subsection to which it refers, which deals with inquiries in connection with the original issue of incorporation orders for the new boroughs. It deals with inquiries either by the Minister of Housing or by the Secretary of State, according to the subject, because both contribute to different items in the ultimate incorporation order.
The hon. Member's Amendment would have the incidental effect, which I assume he had not intended, of deleting the Minister of Housing from the subsection altogether. This is something which in any case could not be accepted, because there is a clear division of responsibilities within the context of these orders between the Minister of Housing and the Secretary of State, and they must both play their role whatever it is, in contributing to the order. Incidentally, I was going to point out,


if the Chair had not done so, that the hon. Gentleman's reference to expenses touched upon the immediately following Amendment, which will be debated separately.
The incorporation orders will be made by the Minister of Housing and Local Government. Therefore, provision is made in the Bill for him to arrange for any public inquiries he may think necessary. It would still be so even under the Amendment. The Amendment would still be permissive as to whether or not an inquiry was ultimately held at the Minister's discretion. It is impossible to say in advance what questions might need to be covered by such an inquiry. Therefore, some latitude was allowed in the drafting of the subsection in the words which the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North read, particularly
as may appear … to be expedient".
A similar permissive phrase appears in the Amendment as drafted, which says that
the Secretary of State if satisfied that there is a prima facie case … may cause a local inquiry …
In principle there is no difference there in the latitude allowed.
In addition to the Minister of Housing and Local Government, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has a special but limited responsibility in these incorporation orders, especially for two sectors of them—first, to make the arrangements necessary to enable the first elections to the new borough councils to be held and, secondly, to draw the initial ward boundaries within the borough. This is a delicate operation Which is likely to necessitate local inquiries of which notice will be given and the Home Secretary is thus introduced into this Clause on all fours with the Minister of Housing and Local Government. They are not alternative holders of inquiries. Either of them may hold inquiries according to the nature of the questions raised, and with regard to any particular borough there may be either two inquiries, one by each, or one or none, according to the way their discretion is exercised.
It is to this provision of 'the Bill that the Amendment is directed. I am glad I was right in construing the intention of

the hon. Member for Hayes and Harling-ton to be that of making perfectly sure that the citizens' rights are not overlooked. I can assure him that that is the Government's intention, too. It is true that the provision for the initial division of the boroughs is less full than for the subsequent alteration of the wards within the boroughs provided by Part III of the First Schedule. In practice, however, I want to make it clear that the procedure to be followed when the initial division takes place will be essentially the same as that to be followed for alterations under Part III of the First Schedule, and at the request of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary local authorities in the Greater London area are already engaged in the preliminary steps to make it possible to make a start on the official job when the Bill becomes law.
I should like to describe, lest there should be any misunderstanding, what this procedure is going to be. There will first be initial proposals, we hope agreed by the local authorities which the Home Secretary has already approached and which are at work on them, and these proposals will be published locally.

Mr. Mellish: Ward proposals?

Mr. Woodhouse: Yes. A period of at least one month will then be allowed for objections and representations to be made to these proposals, and they can be made by anyone. If these objections and representations show a clear prima faciecase for examination, the Home Secretary, if it is the Home Secretary, will appoint a commissioner, or if it is the Minister of Housing and Local Government he will appoint an inspector. I think that the only essential difference between the two at this point, in answer to the point made by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington, is that the Ministry of Housing has readily available to it a considerable corps of inspectors who can be appointed to fulfil these functions from its own staff, whereas the Home Office has no such body of people readily available and therefore goes outside to the legal profession, to the great advantage of the hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South, to find a commissioner experienced and qualified in these matters to hold an inquiry.
I do not in the least share the suspicions which the hon. and learned Gentleman tried to sow in my mind against the legal profession in this matter. When the inquiry is decided upon, it will be given full publicity, and when it is held the commissioner will then draw up a scheme, taking into account, so far as possible, all the points of view put to him, and he will submit the scheme to the Secretary of State. My right hon. Friend will then consider the scheme and, if satisfied with it, will hand it over to the Minister for incorporation in the order.
8.45 p.m..
I think that hon. Members opposite have taken the point that I am referring to inquiries on the part of the Home Secretary. The procedure of the Minister in inquiries into functions within his responsibilities will follow exactly the same course, except that they will be conducted by an inspector and not by an outside commissioner. This, in effect, will be the same procedure as that laid down in Part III of Schedule 1 with the same safeguards, the same publicity and the same opportunity for local views to be heard. It is true that all this is permissive, but it would still be permissive under the terms of the Amendment.
The question can fairly be asked: if the procedure similar to Part III of the First Schedule is to be followed and if similar notice is to be given and inquiries to be held, why should this not be spelled out in detail in the Bill? This is a fair question, but there is a good answer to it. The subsection should be looked at as a whole and in the context of Clause 1 as a whole. It deals with one specific matter which arises only at the beginning of this whole exercise of establishing the new Greater London Council.
It is a matter which the Committee will realise must be dealt with with flexibility and speed, because if the elections are to be held on time there will not be a great deal of time available for the elaborate process that must be gone through. If the Bill were to provide in detail not only for every step that would have to be taken by the Home Office in the division of wards but also—and this would have to be done in the same detail—open every other matter that might have to be considered in preparing an

incorporation order—I do not think that it needs much imagination to see, bearing in mind that there will be 32 such orders to be got out in the space of perhaps not much more than sixty days—

Mr. Weitzman: Does that mean that the Minister will hold no inquiries at all or that he will hold only such inquiries as he thinks fit?

Mr. Woodhouse: He will hold—as he would under the terms of the Amendment—such inquiries as in his discretion he thinks justified. This does not differ from the present practice, and, as I said, it does not differ even from the Amendment.

Mr. A. Evans: As I understand it, local authorities and other bodies can make representations to the Home Secretary and inquiries can be held. When the Minister brings in an incorporation order, however, there is nothing in the Bill to say that a local authority may ask for an inquiry. Is this not so?

Mr. Woodhouse: No. It is exactly the same for the Minister as for the Home Secretary; that representations can be made by any individual or any body, and this is the procedure that will be followed. If we attempted to go into exhaustive detail in this initial process, the result would be to add to the Bill yet one more enormous Schedule of monstrous length and one which would be a spent force immediately after the Bill had been carried into law and the first operation effected.
I would now like to touch on one aspect of considerable individual importance which is raised in the Amendment. It is that point which confers the right to make representations on any group of ten or more local electors. I have every sympathy with the principle underlying that proposal, but I would point out that the procedure set out in Part III of the First Schedule—which is similar to that under Section 25 of the 1939 Act—makes it possible for such representations to be made by anyone and does not limit it to any numerical group of the population. It contains no provision giving a specified right to a group and it places no bar upon any particular number of people making representations. In other words, it leaves it free to anyone to make representations,


and it is the regular practice to take account of all representations that may be made, whether by individuals or groups. Therefore, on this point it would not make any difference whether the Amendment said that it was ten or more than ten electors. In practice, the representations of anyone whether as individuals or as groups would be taken into account.
If, on the other hand, we were to write into the Bill, as the Amendment proposes, a minimum number whose representations would have to be taken into account, that would carry at least the implication that the representations of the single individual would not be taken into account and could be ignored. This might act as discouragement to the individual from putting forward his own point of view, which under the present procedure he is perfectly free and welcome to do. These are the reasons why my right hon. Friend cannot accept the Amendment, which would have the effect of hampering both the freedom of action of Ministers and the freedom of action of ordinary citizens. I hope that, having heard the explanation, the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington can see his way to withdraw the Amendment, reassured in the knowledge that citizens' representations are safeguarded in the way he desires.

Mr. Mellish: None can complain of the charming and pleasant way in which the Joint Under-Secretary of State has put his case, but he has missed the obvious. He has no right to talk about this being a democratic Bill or about the rights of people to represent their point of view. The Bill has been imposed on the citizens of London without any consultation at all with Londoners. The Government have no mandate to introduce a Bill which will completely change and to a large extent smash local government in the London area. At no time have people been consulted about their views on it.
We have had presented to us a Bill which provides that by Act of Parliament certain boroughs will now be merged. We wish as a last resort that on issues of boundaries and certain other matters in Part III of the First Schedule which will be known to them the electors shall be entitled to make representations

in the way we have described in the Amendment. This is a matter on which we think citizens have democratic rights. The hon. Gentleman and many other hon. Members opposite act as if they took for granted that most people in London are dissatisfied with their local government. This is not true. Too many people have the idea that the Londoner does not care about his town or borough. But the Londoner is very parochial. He is a south-east Londoner or a north-Londoner, and so on. It means a great deal to him. The boundaries of his own ward mean a great deal to him.
The Government bring forward a Bill without consultation to bring together parts of London which have never been married before, with consequent tremendous changes in boundaries. All the boundaries will be altered and the sizes of wards vastly extended. In many parts of London, and certainly in the part which I represent, there is a tremendous local history which cannot be ignored. However difficult it may be for the Parliamentary draftsmen, and however much it will increase the size of the Bill, it is right that these matters should be written into the Bill.
The Minister knows what we want to do with the Bill and, therefore, it does not matter to us if the Bill is bigger. All we want is to get more sense into the Bill and to know exactly what are the citizen's rights. They are to have the right of appeal against the boundaries, the number of councillors in the borough and the apportionment of councillors. This ought to be done at a public inquiry and ought not to be left to the Minister to decide whether a case is made out.
The whole system of democracy is being affected under the Government. The Minister of Transport has taken powers by which he can divert traffic in any paint of London without consulting the citizens. This may appear to be out of order�ž—

The Temporary Chairman: It goes beyond appearing to be out of order, I think.

Mr. Mellish: Many of these rights have already been taken away, and it is proper that we as an Opposition should ensure that in all these matters the citizen shall have a chance of expressing


his point of view at a public inquiry. In spite of all the assurances by the Joint Under-Secretary of State, I hope that we shall take this Amendment to a Division.

Mr. Skeffington: I should like to thank the Joint Under-Secretary of State for his full and courteous explanation. At any rate, we are in a better position on this Amendment than we have been on other Amendments. I understand that it would be necessary to include the Minister of Housing and Local Government, and, were The Government prepared to accept this Amendment, Chat Minister could easily be added to the Amendment.
An interesting point which has emerged from the hon. Gentleman's speech is that if anybody wishes to make representations he will have a period of one month in which to do so. I understand that such a person will have an opportunity of doing this before the order of incorporation is made. I should like to know what is the authority for that statement. I cannot find it in the Bill. The hon. Gentleman went on to say, "It is very difficult to put all this in. We have got to have 32 orders. They have got to go through the machine fairly quickly. Therefore, we cannot do it in much detail."
I am fairly innocent myself, but I felt that it was asking rather a lot to expect us to take all that on trust. I can hardly see the Secretary of State holding an inquiry if one person were to object, but if the Government were in favour of this surely it would be easy to put in the Schedule, if not in the Clause, the fact that the citizen has such a right. No citizen reading the Bill would know that he had this right. The fact is extraordinarily well concealed. Therefore, before we make any further decision, I should like to know where in -the Bill the authority is given that any one person can make representations and will have a month in which to do so, and that this will apply to the order as well as subsequently after the order is made.

Mr. A. Evans: It is important that we should clear our minds on exactly what Che procedure will be when the Minister brings in his incorporation order. We have been told that when that order is introduced not only will it be possible for the local authority or representative

bodies to make representations to the Secretary of State regarding ward boundaries and so on, but that on incorporation it will be possible under the Bill for a representative body or local authority in a given area to put forward proposals for an inquiry and to make suggestions to the Minister of Housing and Local Government. Reiterating the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington), where in Che Bill is that fact made clear?

Mr. Woodhouse: The authority for what I have said, for which the hon. Gentleman has asked, rests on my consultations with my colleagues in preparation for this occasion. I have explained what the procedure will be under the Bill. I have explained, also, why it is not made explicit and every particular step is not spelled out in the same detail as it is in Part III.
I repeat again, and emphasise, that everyone has the right to make representations. Of course, that is not the same thing as the right to require or demand or impose an inquiry. The holding of an inquiry rests within the discretion of the Minister concerned, but anyone, not merely 10 citizens as proposed in the Amendment, has the right to make representations.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: Could not there at least be some intimation as to the content of the notices to be given? There is no intimation in the Clause as it stands that the notices shall express a right of representation. There is no clue in the Clause as to what the content of the notices will be. The Minister gives us his personal assurance, but, with very great respect, on such an important constitutional matter, I should have thought that it could be embodied as part of the Clause that there should be, at least, some indication as to the content of the notices. Could the Minister meet us on that?

Mr. A. Evans: We have been assured by the Under-Secretary of State that Part III of the First Schedule will apply to the Secretary of State and equally to the Minister of Housing and Local Government.
As regards the Secretary of State, the procedure is clearly laid down in Part III of the First Schedule, and it is said in


words that the council of a borough can put forward proposals, and so on. If the same circumstances obtain as regards the Minister of Housing and Local Government, that representations can be made to him upon incorporation, that equally should be laid down in the Schedule. It is laid down as regards the Secretary of State. Should not it also be laid down as regards the Minister of Housing and Local Government?

Mr. Woodhouse: With respect, I did not say that Part III would apply equally to both Ministers. I said that the procedure would be similar.

Mr. Ede: Can the Under-Secretary of State point to the words in the Bill on which he bases his statement that what he described to us is, in fact, the procedure under the Bill? I gather that he said that he had been present at some conversations which were held. It would be no good an aggrieved citizen going to the courts or complaining to his Member of Parliament that he was not present at the conversations but the Minister was, and then, after reference to the minutes at the time, finding that there is no statutory basis for the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

Mr. Woodhouse: The statement I made was in explanation of the subsection, to make clear how it would be applied.

I did explain that these words are not in the Bill and, of course, I cannot point to them. I was explaining how the provisions of the Bill were to be carried out in practice.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman say something about my suggestion regarding the notices? A notice may merely state that an incorporation order is to be made. It may give no indication to the citizen about his right of representation at all.

Mr. Woodhouse: The hon. and learned Gentleman will understand that I could not myself give an undertaking in that sense now, but I will certainly convey his suggestion to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Skeffington: The hon. Gentleman has been very courteous and patient. May I ask him to note also that, of course, citizens outside London have had two or three opportunities. Now, at least, we shall have one month after an order is published, but it is very little.

Mr. Woodhouse: In London, also, there have been ample opportunities for making representations, for instance, to the Royal Commission.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out, to "and", in line 27, stand part of the Clause:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 229, Noes 185.

Division No. 27.]
AYES
[9.5 p.m.


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Chataway, Christopher
Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.


Allason, James
Chichester-Clark, R.
Farey-Jones, F. W.


Atkins, Humphrey
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Finlay, Graeme


Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Fisher, Nigel


Balniel, Lord
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Barter, John
Cleaver, Leonard
Foster, John


Batsford, Brian
Cooke, Robert
Fraser, Rt.Hn. Hugh (Staffordamp;Stone)


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Cooper, A. E.
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Gammans, Lady


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos amp; Fhm)
Corfield, F. V.
Gardner, Edward


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Coulson, Michael
Gibson-Watt, David


Bidgood, John C.
Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)


Bishop, F. P.
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Glover, Sir Douglas


Bossom, Hon. Clive
Crawley, Aidan
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)


Bourne-Arton, A.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)


Box, David
Crowder, F. P,
Goodhart, Philip


Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward
Cunningham, Knox
Goodhew, Victor


Braine, Bernard
Curran, Charles
Cough, Frederick


Brewis, John
Currie, G. B. H.
Grant-Ferris, R.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Dalkeith, Earl of



Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Dance, James
Green, Alan


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Gresham Cooke, R.


Buck, Antony
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Crosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.


Bullard, Denys
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)


Burden, F. A.
Drayson, G. B.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)


Butcher, Sir Herbert
du Cann, Edward
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)


Campbell, Gordon (Moray amp; Nairn)
Duncan, Sir James
Harvie Anderson, Miss


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Eden, John
Hastings, Stephen


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hay, John


Cary, Sir Robert
Elliott, R.W.(Nwcastle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel


Channon, H. p. G.
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Henderson, John (Cathcart)




Hendry, Forbes
Maginnis, John E.
Seymour, Leslie


Hiley, Joseph
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Sharples, Richard


Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon Charles (Luton)
Marshall, Douglas
Shaw, M.


Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Marten, Neil
Shepherd, William


Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Hirst, Geoffrey
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd amp; Chiswlck)


Hocking, Philip N.
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Holland, Philip
Mayhew, Christopher
Stevens, Geoffrey


Hollingworth, John
Mills, Stratton
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Hopkins, Alan
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Stodart, J. A.


Hornby, R. P.
Morgan, William
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.
Morrison, John
Studholme, Sir Henry


Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Summers, Sir Spencer


Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Neave, Airey
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Hughes-Young, Michael
Nlcholla, Sir Harmar
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Hulbert, Sir Norman
Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Teeling, Sir William


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Temple, John M.


James, David
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)


Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Panned, Norman (Kirkdale)
Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Partridge, E.
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Jones, Arthur (Northants, S)
Percival, tan
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith
Pilkington, Sir Richard
Turner, Colin


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Pitman, Sir James
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

Tweed8muir, Lady


Kitson, Timothy
Pitt, Dame Edith
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Pott, Percivall
Vane, W. M. F.


Leavey, J. A.
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Vickers, Miss Joan


Leburn, Gilmour
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)
Walder, David


Lilley, F. J. P.
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John
Walker, Peter


Linstead, Sir Hugh
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek


Litchfield, Capt. John
Pym, Francis
Wall, Patrick


Longbottom, Charles
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Ward, Dame Irene


Loveys, Walter H.
Rawlinson, 8ir Peter
Webster, David


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Wells, John (Maidstone)


McLaren, Martin
Rees, Hugh
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Renton, Rt. Hon. David
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Ridsdale, Julian
Wise, A. R.


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Buteamp;N.Ayrs.)
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Robson Brown, Sir William
Woodhouse, C. M.


MacLeod, John (Ross amp; Cromarty)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Woollam, John


McMaster, Stanley R.
Roots, William



Macmillan, Rt.Hn. Harold (Bromley)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Macphelson, Rt.Hn. Niall (Dumfries)
St. Clair, M.
Mr. Peel and Mr. MacArthur.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Deer, George
Hilton, A. V.


Ainsley, William
Delargy, Hugh
Holman, Percy


Albu, Austen
Dempsey, James
Holt, Arthur


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Diamond, John
Hooson, H. E.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Dodds, Norman
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central)
Donnelly, Desmond
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Barnett, Guy
Driberg, Tom
Hunter, A. E.


Beaney, Alan
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
Hynd, H. (Accrington)


Ballanger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)


Bance, Cyril
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)


Blackburn, F.
Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Janner, Sir Barnett


Blyton, William
Evans, Albert
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas


Boardman, H.
Fernyhough, E.
Jeger, George


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Fitch, Alan
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech(Wakefield)


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W.(Leics, S.W.)
Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Jonas, Elwyn (west Ham, S.)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Forman, J. C.
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Bradley, Tom
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)


Brockway, A. Fenner

Kelley, Richard


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Galpern, Sir Myer
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Ginsburg, David
King, Dr. Horace


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Lawson, George


Carmichael, Nell
Gourlay, Harry
Ledger, Ron


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Greenwood, Anthony
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Chapman, Donald
Grey, Charles
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)


Cliffe, Michael
Grimths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)


Collick, Percy
Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Lipton, Marcus


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Loughlin, Charles


Crosland, Anthony
Hamilton, William (west Fife)
Lubbock, Eric


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Hannan, William
MacColl, James


Dalyell, Tarn
Harper, Joseph
McInnes, James


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Herbison, Miss Margaret
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Mackie, John (Enfield, East)


Davies, Ifor (Cower)
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
McLeavy, Frank







MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Prentice, R. E.
Stonehouse, John


Macpherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Stones, William


Mallalleu, E. L. (Brigg)
Probert, Arthur
Swain, Thomas


Manuel, Archie
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Mapp, Charles
Rankin, John
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Marsh, Richard
Redhead, E. C.
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Mellish, R. J.
Reynolds, G. W.
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Millan, Bruce
Rhodes, H.
Thornton, Ernest


Milne, Edward
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Thorpe, Jeremy


Mitchison, G. R.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Timmons, John


Moody, A. S.
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Tomney, Frank


Morris, John
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.
Wainwright, Edwin


Moyle, Arthur
Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)
Warbey, William


Neal, Harold
Ross, William
Weitzman, David


Noel-Baker, Rt.Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Royle, Charles (Salford, West)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Oliver, G. H.
Russell, Ronald
White, Mrs. Eirene


Oram, A. E.
Short, Edward
Whitlock, William


Oswald, Thomas
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Wilkins, W. A.




Willey, Frederick


Padley, W. E.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)


Pannell, Charles (Leeds, w.)
Skeffington, Arthur
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Parker, John
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Willis, E. C. (Edinburgh, E.)


Parkin, B. T.
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Winterbottom, R. E.


Pavitt, Laurence
Small, William
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Peart, Frederick
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank



Pentland, Norman
Spriggs, Leslie
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Plummer, Sir Leslie
Steele, Thomas
Mr. Charles A. Howell and


Popplewell, Ernest
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Mr. McCann.

Mr. A. Evans: I beg to move, in page 2, line 27, to leave out from "expedient" to the end of line 30.
The Amendment concerns the cost of any inquiry that might be made when the Minister makes an incorporation order setting up one of the new London boroughs or each of them in turn. The Minister, presumably, will make a separate incorporation order for each new London borough.
The Minister of Housing and Local Government will make the order and the local authority, presumably, has to accept its terms. The local authority is not likely to be anxious to have the new order incorporating it in a different arrangement. I think that, without exception, every local authority in the Greater London area has no desire to be incorporated under this Bill.
9.15 p.m.
The new London boroughs will consist of a number of local authorities brought together, and they will have the incorporation orders thrust upon them by the Minister, and they will have no say, presumably, in what the corporation orders will contain. I would have thought that the Minister would have made provision for consultation between himself and each local authority which will make up a new London borough in each case, I would have thought that he would have laid it down in the Bill or in the Schedule that consultations and agreements between the various local authorities and the Minister would take

place prior to the issue of an incorporation order. But such is not to be the case.
As we read the Bill, we see that the Minister has the initiative and the existing local authorities have no initiative at all in the matter of the terms of their new incorporation. Indeed, as we read it they will not have the right to make representations to the Minister regarding the details of a new order for incorporation. From the terms of the Bill it seems that no provision is made for the local authorities which will make up a new London borough to be consulted or to confer with the Minister about the terms of the new order. Although the local authority is denied the right of representation to the Minister on the contents of the order, although the whole of the initiative is with the Minister and he lays down the wording and the figures which are to appear in the order, although the local authorities have no say in this matter at all, the Minister in this Clause is arranging that the local authority shall pay any cost which the Minister incurs in this matter.
Although this is a comparatively small point and there is no great deal of money in it either for the Exchequer or the local authorities, nevertheless it seems unreasonable that the Minister should deny the local authorities which will be incorporated in a London borough the right of representation or to have any say in the wording of the order and yet at the same time expect them to pay any expenses which the Minister incurs in making the order.
We have been told by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary that it will be possible for local authorities to make representations. We know that by Part III of the First Schedule the local authorities and other bodies may make representations to the Minister of State and the Home Secretary relating to questions of ward boundaries, and so on. But we were told by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary tonight that the same right to make representations to the Minister of Housing and Local Government in regard to incorporation orders would lie with the local authorities.
With respect to him, my colleagues and I can only think that he has been misinformed. His assurance that they will have such rights of representation cannot be accepted. Therefore, through this Amendment, we seek to ensure that local authorities should have a right to make representations to the Minister during the compilation of incorporation orders affecting themselves. We say also that if they are to be denied that right and are not to be asked to play a part in the formulation of their new constitutions, they should not be called upon to pay the cost.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: This Amendment is very reasonable. The whole of the machinery of what is proposed in the attempted demolition of London Government is an instrument of Government policy. There has been no clamour from the local authorities concerned asking for their own dissolution. This Measure is the result of a Government decision and it is to be carried through and enforced by Government action.
Part of the machinery that is proposed, however, is a slight recognition of the possibility that local inquiries might, in certain circumstances, depending upon the will and discretion of the Minister, be held. We have already canvassed the wholly inadequate provisions of the Clause with regard to that, and our attempt to make the position more satisfactory has just failed. But it would seem to be an act of justice to the local authorities and the ratepayers that where in the occasional case the Minister or the Secretary of State does decide that a public inquiry is expedient, it is just that the expenses thereof should be borne by the Exchequer and not by the local authority.
After all, this is the pattern of inquiries into similar matters, and there seems no reason to depart from the principle that where these procedures result from deliberate Government policy the charge resulting from the carrying out of that policy should be a charge which the public at large, through the Exchequer, should bear. The proposal in the Clause adds injury and in many cases adds injury to insult.

Mr. Weitzman: The words the Amendment seeks to omit add insult to injury. The boroughs did not ask for the Bill. Nobody except the Government asked for it. It is a piece of impudence on the part of the Government that, having imposed this sort of thing on the boroughs, they should say that if a borough shows that there is a case for an inquiry, it will have to pay the costs of the inquiry. It is colossal impudence and the Minister should accept the Amendment.

Mr. W. Edwards: It is amazing that the Government should make this provision about possible inquiries. It is the Government who are making a mess of London local government, and if local authorities want to clear up the mess they ought not to be called upon to pay the expenses of that clearing up. That they should be asked to do so is absolutely shocking.
The party opposite is the party which often maintains at municipal elections that it is the party which looks after the interests of ratepayers. Where is this looking after the interests of ratepayers when a charge which should obviously be borne by the Exchequer—for it is the Government who are causing all the bother—falls on local authorities? What is in the Minister's mind? Does he want to deter local authorities from going fully into these matters and so safeguarding the ratepayers? Is it a trick by the Government, or is it honest? Whether it is a trick or honest, this is one of the most unjust charges ever placed upon local authorities in any legislation. The Minister is keeping up to his reputation and is being as unjust as he can to local authorities, regardless of the fact that the Government are responsible for the situation and should therefore be responsible for the expenditure.

Mr. M. Stewart: My hon. Friends have forcibly put the case in morals and


equity for the Amendment. Here is something for which the boroughs have never asked and which in the main they do not want and over which they have no control—they do not control whether there is to be an inquiry or the extent of the inquiry—and yet, none the less, they have to pay for it. It reminds me of the custom which used to be in force—I do not know if it still is—at Eton College. It used to be the practice there, if the behaviour of any of the scholars was such that he had to be corrected with the birch rod, that the instrument was used to such effect that it was thereafter useless and the cost was therefore added to the school bill which was presented to the culprit's parents. It seems that the boroughs are being treated in exactly the same manner, without having committed any offence. I shall be interested to hear what sort of defence is made of this provision.
The Financial and Explanatory Memorandum says:
The expenses of Ministers under the Bill, e.g., in the conduct of inquiries under Part's I and II of the Bill … will also be payable out of monies voted by Parliament.
Yet the first time that we come across an example of an inquiry arising from Part I the cost is paid out of the pockets of ratepayers and not out of moneys provided by Parliament. Why is that so? Why are the terms of the Financial Memorandum not being adhered to? We may be told that the Financial Memorandum does not mean that all the inquiries under Parts I and II will be paid out of moneys voted by Parliament.
9.30 p.m.
Let us have a look. What other inquiries are there under Part I? For example, under the provisions of Clause 6(3)—and I refer to this only very briefly; I believe that it is quite relevant—the Minister can in certain cases cause a local inquiry to be held. I think I am right in saying that an inquiry under Clause 6 would be paid for out of moneys voted by Parliament, as the Financial Memorandum says. I do not believe that the Clause contains an arrangement to put the cost on the ratepayers. On the other hand, if the Clause does that, what are the inquiries under Part I which are to be paid for out of moneys voted by Parliament?
It cannot be that the Financial Memorandum is telling us an untruth; there must be, therefore, some inquiries under that Part of the Bill which are paid for out of moneys voted by Parliament. Why, then, is not this"inquiry to be paid for out of moneys voted by Parliament? It may be that we shall be told that they will be in the first place but that the moneys will then be recovered from the ratepayers. If that is what is meant, it was rather sharp practice to use those words in the Financial Memorandum. We require an explanation from the Government, first, on the major point of morals—why on earth should local authorities have to pay for something which they cannot control, which they never asked for and which they do not want, and, secondly, on the secondary but still important point—what, exactly, is the meaning of the phrase I have quoted from the Financial Memorandum, and why does it not apply to these inquiries?

Mr. Corfield: I hope that I shall be able to help the Committee on the Amendment. It may be helpful if I answer the point raised by the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) first. The reason for the insertion of this provision referring to these expenses is that it has been taken from similar provisions of the London Government Act, 1939, where the same terms are applied and where the expenses are recoverable quite irrespective of whether the initiative comes from the Home Secretary or the borough concerned.
The same principle was also applied—using the word "principle" rather broadly—in the Local Government Act, 1958. I am sure that the Committee will appreciate that under the local government reorganisation which is going on under that Act there is likely to be a number of cases where the local people can equally say that this is not something which they have wished for, but that it has in a sense been thrust upon them.
The provisions of Section 290 of the Local Government Act, 1933, are somewhat different. The Government are quite willing to meet the hon. Member by substituting the terms and principles of that Section for these provisions.
Perhaps it would simplify matters if I read the relevant subsection. It says:
Where a department cause any such inquiry to be held, the costs incurred by them in relation to that inquiry (including such reasonable sum not exceeding five guineas a day as they may determine for the services of any officer engaged in the inquiry) shall be paid by such local authority or party to the inquiry as the department' may direct, and the department may certify the amount of the costs so incurred …
In that Section there is a discretionary power on the part of the Minister concerned. Here the power is mandatory, and the Government are willing to meet the hon. Member by agreeing, on Report or at a later stage, to incorporate the provisions of Section 290 (4) in place of these mandatory provisions.
It might also be helpful to the Committee if I reminded it that, as we see it at the moment, the inquiries that will be held will be almost exclusively under the Home Office rather than under my right hon. Friend's Department. In practice, what happens is that the Home Office exercises the provisions of Section 290 in its favour. In the case of my own Department, largely because we have our own staff of inspectors and do not therefore incur the same outside expenses, we do not normally make charges. But if the hon. Gentleman will consider withdrawing the Amendment, we will certainly take that step towards him, which I hope he will consider as a concession.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: Although this gesture is a crumb of comfort and is better than nothing, surely it is still not enough. After all, an inquiry cannot be held until the Secretary of State orders it. He will not order it unless he deems it expedient to do so. We can never be in the presence of a frivolous inquiry because the Minister, or the Secretary of State, will have given prior consideration to whether there should be an inquiry at all. It would seem, to me at any rate, that, having determined that preliminary matter, to exclude all unjustifiable or frivolous inquiries, it would seem proper in the circumstances thereafter—particularly in the circumstances of the coming into existence of this machinery—that the charge should be one upon the Exchequer and not on a local authority.

Mr. M. Stewart: Before my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. A. Evans) rises to beg leave to withdraw the Amendment, may I get the matter clear? If I follow the Parliamentary Secretary rightly, he is prepared to alter the Bill so that the Home Office, which would take most of these inquiries, would have a discretion whether to pay itself or make the local authority pay.

Mr. Corfield: It would apply to both Ministries.

Mr. Stewart: Either the Ministry of the hon. Gentleman or the Home Office, whichever was concerned, would have the discretion either to pay itself or make the local authority pay.

Mr. Corfield: And pay in whole or in part.

Mr. Stewart: Yes, or to divide it.
If I understood the hon. Gentleman rightly, he said it would concern the Home Office more frequently than his Department—which made it easier for him to make these concessions cheerfully. He added that the Home Office, unfortunately, had a reputation of usually using its discretion in its own favour—

Mr. Corfield: It was fair enough to warn them.

Mr. Stewart: —but I hope that in future the Home Office will take the hint and not be inflexibly ungenerous.
This is water in a thirsty land, and it indicates that, like the unfortunate widow, we ought always to pray and not to faint and that in the end we get something.
I sympathise with what was said by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Mr. Elwyn Jones), but I feel that we ought to celebrate the first occasion on which we have had a clear undertaking to alter the Bill, though only in a minor respect. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend will consider it right to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. A. Evans: I have listened to what the Parliamentary Secretary has said, and I am sure he gained a lot of satisfaction from being able to make that concession which we will accept,


although it represents only a small crumb of comfort. I fear that it may have been made in order to cover up some other wickedness on the part of the Department.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. M. Stewart: I beg to move, in page 2, line 44, to leave out "1964" and to insert "1967".
This is obviously an Amendment of major importance. It reflects one's general judgment on the contents of the Bill, although I hope in developing my argument to show that I am not merely going to repeat arguments with which the Committee is familiar from earlier debates about the merits of the Bill as a whole, but to show that there are also quite compelling reasons why, even if one wanted this Bill to become law at all, this date ought to be altered.
I have chosen the date 1967 for the reason that I feel 1964 is too early and that the whole rhythm of local government in Greater London moves in three-year cycles. If I proposed 1965 or 1966 it might be objected that that could not be conveniently fitted into the present rhythm of local government elections. If, however, the Government do not feel that there is any substance in that point and are prepared to say that they think three years ahead is too much but they would be willing to consider 1966 or 1965, I would very willingly accept that.
Broadly speaking, I think 1964 is too early; the date ought at any rate to be twelve months later than that, 1965. I put in 1967 in case it might be objected that 1965 or 1966 was not a convenient year in view of the general pattern of local government elections in Greater London. I hope my Amendment will not be objected to merely because it says 1967 rather than 1966 or 1965. We would be prepared to settle for any of those dates.
One of the main reasons for wanting a postponement is that we consider that this plan ought not to come fully into operation until the electors as a whole have had an opportunity to pronounce on it at a Parliamentary General Election. Not only does this Bill affect a very large number of people—8 million,

about a sixth of our whole population—but, as has been pointed out elsewhere and as we have discovered in the course of our debates today, this Bill embodies certain general principles and attitudes about local government which the Government are likely to apply in other parts of the country.
It is also introducing, by the size of the authority it creates, a new kind of government, something which is too large to be local government as we know it but too small to be regional government. If we once start doing that with the general pattern of local government in the country, it is something which concerns everyone whether they live in Greater London or not. It would be reasonable before making a change of this magnitude to give the electorate as a whole an opportunity to pronounce on it.
If, of course, the Minister is in a position to give us an undertaking that there will be a General Election before this Bill even becomes law, it will hardly be necessary for me to proceed with the Amendment, although I am not unreasonable and I do not positively demand an assurance of that kind. I prefer to deal with the matter in the normal Parliamentary way of trying to amend the Bill in such a way that it does not come into operation until the electorate as a whole has had an opportunity to pronounce upon it.
There are several reasons why I think it sound to demand that. It has often been stated, and truly stated, that there is no mandate for a Bill of this kind. Ministers and hon. Members opposite who know the London and Greater London constituencies must be perfectly well aware that if they had made it known to electors in Greater London constituencies at the last election that they proposed to do this kind of thing, the result in a number of constituencies concerned would have been very different from what it was.
We cannot argue against all the legislation a Government introduces that it has no mandate for it, because things often happen in the lifetime of a Government which cannot be foreseen. A Government which regarded itself as always tied to a mandate could not govern, but nothing happened between 1958 and now which obliged the Government to say that it is imperative to carry


out a major reorganisation of Greater London government before the next General Election. Nobody could pretend that.
9.45 p.m.
It is, I think, sound democratic doctrine that the Government should not proceed with major Measures for which they have no mandate unless they can show that it is necessary for the good government of the country to proceed with them with that degree of haste. That cannot be demonstrated of this Bill. The whole of these proceedings could be pushed 12 months into the future, and nobody could say that good administration would suffer as a result; but it would give an opportunity for the electorate to pronounce on them. That is one reason why we should await the judgment of the people: there has been no mandate for the Bill.
Secondly, it cannot be said that the Bill has by now the weight and moral authority of a Royal Commission behind it. It could probably be demonstrated that at some time during the 1959 election some more or less leading figure in the Conservative Party mumbled something or other about local government reform in general, and that, building on that, they appointed a Royal Commission to deal with Greater the findings of the Royal Commission. London, and that the Bill is based on But as the Minister must know, the Bill has by now departed in so many respects from the recommendations of the Royal Commission that the Government cannot claim the moral authority, if there were any, of that Commission behind it.
That is particularly true of the Clause and Schedule which we are to discuss in Committee of the whole House, and which determine the size and boundaries of the London boroughs, because the Government made a major change in the Royal Commission's recommendations about the size that the boroughs should be. The Royal Commission wanted the boroughs if possible to be round about 200,000, and not more than that. The Government proceeded on the principle that if possible they should always be more than 200,000, and many of them are much bigger than that. That is purely the Government's judgment. It has not the authority of the Royal Commission behind it. It

has not a mandate of the people behind it.
Thirdly, it cannot be claimed that there is any consensus of well-informed opinion behind these proposals. Indeed, the remarkable thing about the whole Bill, and particularly about the proposals for the size and boundaries of the boroughs, is that it has not the support either of the democratic many or of the few elite in each branch with which 'the Bill deals. As we know, group after group of people with expert knowledge have pronounced against the Bill. There is a passage in the Press this morning giving the opinion of the medical profession about the proposals to break up the county health service. It is true that the memorandum suggests 'that 'this could be remedied by the use of administrative powers under Clause 46 (1). I am rather doubtful whether that is correct. I would always defer to the opinion of a group of doctors on a medical matter, but when it is a matter of what the Minister can and cannot do under a Clause in a Bill, I do not see why I should defer to the opinion of doctors more than to the opinion of anyone else. Their case against the termination of the service is serious.
It is significant that for each department of knowledge with which the Bill deals the group of people whom I call, without any disrespect, the elite—that is to say, people who have much more knowledge than the average person can possibly have of that particular service—have pronounced against it. These include doctors and architects. I had the good fortune to hear the Minister address the Royal Institution of British Architects earlier this month. What amused me was that the architects kept assuring him that they were in favour of the Bill in principle. If I had been in charge of a Bill and had been assured of support in tones as chilling as that of the meeting, I should have been alarmed. The Minister must have come away from 'the meeting feeling, "If this is support for the Bill, what will opposition be like?" Doctors, architects, magistrates, teachers, every group of people—

Mr. Ellis Smith: The élite.

Mr. M. Stewart: I hope that word will not be misunderstood, but I think it is true that on any subject one likes


to mention it is important to get the views of two groups of people. When discussing health, it is important to know what the ordinary citizen thinks. It is also important to know what the doctors think. It is a mistake to make up one's mind on policy without consulting both those views. In a really healthy society, all of us would belong to the elite on one subject and be some of the common men on something else. I would never reject a Bill simply on the ground that the people with expert knowledge were opposed to it; but when a Bill is both unpopular with people in general and every group of experts dislikes it in particular it is not unreasonable to think that there might be something wrong with the Bill and it ought to be subjected to a General Election before it becomes law.
Another reason for doing that is that there is not in the Bill any procedure which gives the inhabitants of Greater London the kind of rights that are to be given in local government reorganisation to people in any other part of the country. The procedure is different there. Under the 1958 Act draft recommendations will be made by the Commission. All the parties concerned will have a chance of looking at the draft recommendations, making their own judgments on them, and presenting them to an inquiry. Only then will final recommendations be made. Then the Ministers, on the basis of that, will make orders and the House of Commons will decide what to do about the orders. At no time did Londoners have presented to them a draft of the Bill so that they could go through the formal process of making objections. It is true that they could give evidence to the Royal Commission, but when the Royal Commission was sitting no proposals had been made. That was a semi-academic inquiry. Everybody came forward and expressed his opinions about what London government ought to be like. When the Royal Commission had finished its job and made its own recommendations, those recommendations were not subject, as recommendations affecting provincial areas are, to the process of official public scrutiny and inquiry. This has not prevented Londoners of their own motion holding their meetings, expressing their opinions, and passing their judgments on

what the Royal Commission and the later Government White Paper proposed. But they have never been guaranteed any proper statutory right of having the first recommendations put before them and made the subject of objection and inquiry. They have been treated worse in this respect than the people of any other part of the Kingdom.
My fifth reason for saying that this ought to be submitted to the test of a Parliamentary General Election before it comes into force is the clear and recent evidence we have of popular opposition to the Bill. I made my point earlier about the way in which one can, and should try to, collect on any major measure the opinion both of the experts and of people in general. Fortunately we have quite recent evidence as to what the opinion of people in general is about the Bill. It was only a few months after the White Paper was produced that we bad the borough council elections in London. A major issue in some of the boroughs was, "What do you think ought to be done about London education?" When those election campaigns began, the plan then was to hack the L.C.C. area completely out.
As the elections proceeded and, possibly, as reports of what was happening arrived at the Tory Central Office, the Government introduced a compromise plan which saved about two-thirds of the L.C.C. area. Even this, alas, did not serve to preserve the Tory control of Wandsworth from being destroyed at the election. The electors showed clearly enough what they thought of the proposal. So we had the still further modification of the education proposals, which now appears in the Bill.
More recently, in December, the Bill was read a second time. Just about that time there were two significant by-elections, one for the London County Council and one for the Middlesex County Council. One of those was in the Central Wandsworth Division, in London, a seat previously held by the Labour councillor with a majority of about 500. It is now held by a Labour councillor with a majority of three times that figure—and that was at a by-election in which the Bill under discussion was clearly in issue.
In the West Acton Division, in Middlesex, there was a by-election in


a seat which had been held by the Conservative Party with a majority of about 300. It is now represented by a Labour councillor with a majority of over 1.000. There again was an election in which the Bill was a clear issue. The facts have shown themselves all along the line. I see the hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Partridge) shaking his head, but I do not think that he took part in the by-election in West Acton.

Mr. E. Partridge: I was close to it.

Mr. Stewart: He will know, then, that the Conservative candidate was thrown very much further down the voting list on that occasion. I read the Labour candidate's address and I can assure hon. Members that it made the Bill a clear issue. Here are two recent county council by-elections at which this issue was before the electorate. They returned a verdict both impressive and serious and one to which the Government should pay attention.
I ask the Minister, therefore, to consider whether it is a dignified or democratic procedure to go ahead with a Bill against which there is such a weight of feeling by expert evidence? Or does he feel that if the Bill had to run the gauntlet of a General Election it would not survive? If he really feels that, he surely should not press forward with the Measure. A major change like this ought only to be made if one is reasonably satisfied that one has a solid weight of opinion behind it and that it is not likely to be speedily overthrown by a coming election. It is unwise morally and ministerially to proceed with a Bill which one feels cannot survive an elec-

tion which, in any case, cannot be long delayed.

We shall not lose all that much, from anyone's point of view, by postponing the operation of the Bill for twelve months. After all, a great change is involved. There can be no overwhelming reason for saying that it must take place at this juncture, rather than twelve or eighteen months later. If it ran the gauntlet of a General Election and survived the Government would then be in a strong position to say, as they cannot say now, that it is a change which Londoners desire.

To discover whether Londoners or people outside London desire the Bill the Government should be prepared—and the Measure does not have the authority of a Royal Commission behind it, has no signs of popular support and is condemned by expert opinion—to say that they will wait until, in the normal democratic process, Londoners and others have had an opportunity to pronounce upon it. They are not prepared to do that and it speaks ill for the confidence the Government have in the soundness and morality of their own Measure.

It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMANleft the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put:—
That the Proceedings on the London Government Bill be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House) for one hour after Ten o'clock.—[Sir K. Joseph.]

The House divided:Ayes 221, Noes 173.

Division No. 28.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Box, Donald
Chataway, Christopher


Atkins, Humphrey
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Chichester-Clark, R.


Awdry, Danlel (Chippenham)
Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)


Balniel, John
Braine, Bernard
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)


Barter, John
Brewis, John
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, w.)


Batsford, Brian
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Cleaver, Leonard


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Cooke, Robert


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Cooper, A. E.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos amp; Fhm)
Buck, Antony
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Bullard, Denys
Corfield, F. V.


Bidgood, John C.
Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Coulson, Michael


Biffen, John
Campbell, Gordon (Moray amp; Nairn)
Courtney, Cdr. Anthony


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)


Bishop, F. P.
Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver


Bossom, Hon. Olive
Cary, Sir Robert
Crowder, F. P.


Bourne-Arton, A.
Channon, H. P. G.
Curran, Charles




Currie, G. B. H.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rawlinson, Sir Peter


Dalkeith, Earl of
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Dance, James
James, David
Rees, Hugh


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Johnson, Eric (Buckley)
Renton, Rt. Hon. David


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Ridsdale, Julian


Doughty, Charles
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S)
Rippon, Rt. Hon. Geoffrey


Drayson, G. B.
Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Duncan, Sir James
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Robson Brown, Sir William


Eden, John
Kimball, Marcus
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Eillot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Kltson, Timothy
Roots, William


Elliott, R.W. (Nwcastle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Leavey, J. A.
Russell, Ronald


Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
St. Clair, M.


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Scott-Hopkins, James


Finlay, Graeme
Litchfield, Capt. John
Seymour, Leslie


Fisher, Nigel
Longbottom, Charles
Sharpies, Richard


Fletcher-Cooks, Charles
Loveys, Walter H.
Shaw, M.


Foster, John
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Shepherd, William


Fraser, Rt.Hn. Hugh (Staffordamp;Stone)
MacArthur, Ian
Skeet, T. H. H


Gammans, Lady
McLaren, Martin
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntfd amp; Chiswick)


Gardner, Edward
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Gibson-Watt, David
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Giimour, Sir John (East Fife)
Maclean, Sir Fltzroy (Buteamp;N. Ayrs)
Stodart, J. A.


Glover, Sir Douglas
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
MacLeod, John (Ross St Cromarty)
Studholme, Sir Henry


Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
McMaster, Stanley R.
Summers, Sir Spencer


Goodhart, Philip
Macpherson, Rt.Hn. Niall (Dumfries)
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Goodhew, Victor
Maginnis, John E.
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)


Gough, Frederick
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Teeling, Sir William


Grant-Ferris, R.
Marten, Neil
Temple, John M.


Green, Alan
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)


Gresham Cooke, R.
Mawby, Ray
Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)


Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Gurden, Harold
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Mills, Stratton
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Miscampbell, Norman
Turner, Colin


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Morgan. William
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Hastings, Stephen
Morrison, John
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Hay, John
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Vane, W. M. F.


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Neave, Airey
Vickers, Miss Joan


Hendry, Forbes
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Wakefield, Sir Wavell


Hlley, Joseph
Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard
Walder, David


Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Walker, Peter


Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek


Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Wall, Patrick


Hirst, Geoffrey
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Ward, Dame Irene


Hocking, Philip N.
Partridge, E.
Webster, David


Holland, Philip
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Hollingworth, John
Percival, Ian
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John
Pilkington, Sir Richard
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Hopkins, Alan
Pitman, Sir James
Wise, A. R.


Hornby, R. P.
Pott, Percivall
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.
Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)
Woodhouse, C. M.


Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John
Woodnutt, Mark


Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Proud toot, Wilfred
Woollam, John


Hughes-Young, Michael
Pym, Francis



Hulbert, Sir Norman
Quennell, Miss J. M.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr, Peel and Mr. Ian Fraser.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Carmichael, Neil
Evans, Albert


Ainsley, William
Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Fernyhough, E.


Albu, Austen
Cliffe, Michael
Fitch, Alan


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Collick, Percy
Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)


Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central)
Crosland, Anthony
Forman, J. C.


Barnett, Guy
Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)


Beaney, Alan
Dalyell, Tarn
Galpern, Sir Myer


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.


Bence, Cyril
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Gourlay, Harry


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Greenwood, Anthony


Blackburn, F.
Deer, George
Grey, Charles


Blyton, William
Delargy, Hugh
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)


Boardman, H.
Dempsey, James
Griffiths, W. (Exchange)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Diamond, John
Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics, S.W.)
Dodds, Norman
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Donnelly, Desmond
Hamilton, William (West Fife)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Driberg, Tom
Hannan, William


Bradley, Tom
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
Harper, Joseph


Brockway, A. Fenner
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Hewitson, Capt. M.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Hill, J. (Midlothian)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce(Wood Green)
Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Hilton, A. V.







Holman, Percy
Millan, Bruce
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Holt, Arthur
Milne, Edward
Small, William


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Mitchison, G. R.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Moody, A. S.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Hunter, A. E.
Morris, John
Spriggs, Leslie


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Neal, Harold
Steele, Thomas


Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Noel-Baker, Rt.Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Oliver, G. H.
Stones, William


Irving, Sydney (Dartforel)
Oram, A. E.
Swain, Thomas


Janner, Sir Barnett
Oswald, Thomas
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Jeger, George
Padley, W. E.
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Parker, John
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Parkin, B. T.
Thornton, Ernest


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Pavitt, Laurence
Timmons, John


Kelley, Richard
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Tomney, Frank


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Peart, Frederick
Wainwright, Edwin


King, Dr. Horace
Pentland, Norman
Warbey, William


Lawson, George
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Weitzman, David


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Popplewell, Ernest
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Prentice, R. E.
White, Mrs. Eirene


Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Price, J. T. (Westhougtiton)
Whitlock, William


Lipton, Marcus
Probert, Arthur
Wilkins, W. A.


Loughlin, Charles
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Willey, Frederick


Lubbock, Eric
Redhead, E. C.
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)


MacColl, James
Reynolds, G W.
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


McInnes, James
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Mackie, John (Enfield, East)
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Winterbottom, R. E.


MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Rodgere, W. T. (Stockton)
Woof, Robert


Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Ross, William
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Manuel, Archie
Short, Edward



Mapp, Charles
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Marsh, Richard
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Mr. Charles A. Howell and


Mayhew, Christopher
Skeffington, Arthur
Mr. McCann.


Mellish, R. J.
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

LONDON GOVERNMENT BILL

Again considered in Committee.

Question again proposed.

Mr. Charles Doughty: I support the Amendment, but not entirely for the reasons which the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) gave. I do not believe that there is great force in the argument that this Bill or any Bill should be left until after a General Election because a General Election, of coarse, is decided not upon one subject but upon a variety. Although this Bill, among many other matters, will be mentioned during the election campaign, the decision cannot be said to be given upon the merits of demerits of one particular Bill.
However, I read with some apprehension that it is proposed to hold elections of councillors for each London borough, that is, the new boroughs, in May, 1964. That is only one year from next May. When one looks at the Bill, one realises what has to be accomplished within that time in the House, let alone outside. There are 86 Clauses and 17 Schedules, and we are now on page 2 of the Bill. We have to consider it in detail. I sincerely hope that we shall consider it fully and not be unduly hurried in our

discussions because there are many matters which call for very careful consideration. When we have finished with the Bill, it must go to another place, and there are then other steps to be taken later in this place before we finally part with it.
The House of Commons will have other things to do and other matters to consider between now and the end of the Session. We shall have before us a variety of matters, apart from the Finance Bill. This Bill cannot possibly become law until late in the autumn. Between then and May of the following year the whole of the reorganisation will have to take place. In many instances, the reorganisation will have to take place between parties who are not at all willing partners in the organisation or reorganisation. All that must be done—I am speaking now only of the administrative machinery—before any sort of election can take place.
It is only fair that the various parties who will wish to support those standing for election as councillors should have time to organise or reorganise themselves in their new positions and to select the candidates who may, or may not, ultimately become councillors. How all that can be done in the few months available


passes my comprehension, particularly when I remember that it has to be done by voluntary organisations.
In my view, this is speeding things up too much. I do not necessarily say that we should wait until 1967. I agree with the hon. Gentleman opposite who said that his mind was not fixed upon any particular year. It may be that one year is sufficient. However, I do believe that to try to get the Bill through, put the machinery into action and get the amalgamations carried out—unwilling amalgamations in many cases—and then have elections held within the very few months which will remain before May, 1964, is to show an undue haste. I do not approve of it being shown in this matter, and I therefore support the Amendment.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: It is most gratifying that there should be support for this Amendment from the benches opposite. We look forward with enthusiasm to the hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) joining us in the Division Lobby in due course on this most worthy Amendment.
The speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) in introducing the Amendment was quite masterly and very impressive. He traversed the democratic principles which call for further time for consideration before this revolutionary change in the structure of the government of this great community comes into being. As he pointed out, as many as 8 million people are affected by the proposed Bill. When one contemplates that at the United Nations there are several sovereign Governments representing populations less than that, it is a measure of the far-reaching importance of this change which will alter the whole political structure of this vast community.
The principle of the mandate is, I agree, highly arguable, but here at any rate is a clear case of a major change in Government structure being introduced by a Government which gave no breath or hint of it at the last General Election. Failure to accept this Amendment can, I think, reasonably be interpreted as fear of the people and of their judgment of this matter if it were referred to them.
Reference has already been made to the mass of expert criticism of the con-

tents of the Bill. It is important to underline the massive and substantial departures in the Bill from the recommendations of the Royal Commission. I speak with some feeling on this matter, representing, as I do, the southern part of West Ham, a borough which is to lose its separate identity completely if this Measure goes through, contrary to the Royal Commission's recommendations. No such recommendation was made. That is an illustration of the way in which the Government have seen fit to play ducks and drakes with the Royal Commission's recommendations, and one cannot help having an uneasy suspicion that there are political motives behind some, at any rate, of the decisions the Government has taken, in order to ease the future of the Conservative Party.
When faced with this kind of situation, the need for time to ponder and to review the matter further is abundantly evident. Shotgun marriages are suggested in the proposed reorganisation of the boroughs, and I should have thought that if a little more time were given voluntary associations, marriages of convenience rather than marriages by the Government's pistol, might still have been capable of being organised. It is another reason for time to ponder, time for further efforts to be made to achieve a reorganisation which has the full support of the people affected by it. We do not want democratic machinery set up at pistol point and at high speed in this way.
It is not as if the government of this great community were grinding to a halt. On the contrary, it is, in most aspects, in good heart and in a good state of health, although clearly some changes would be justifiable. Accordingly, the need for a further pause is, as my hon. Friend indicated, desirable from the public point of view and necessary in the public interest. For these reasons, I support the Amendment with enthusiasm.

Mr. Pavitt: The words of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Mr. Elwyn Jones) have been echoed in many parts of the Committee concerning the conduct of the Bill. The words "shotgun marriage "have been used by many hon. Members, but the essence of the phrase is that it implies undue haste. Because the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) would


give a little breathing time, I implore the Committee to accept it.
If something is good, it is capable of standing the test of time. If the Bill is right, the Government need have no fear in accepting the Amendment and delaying the operation of the Bill until 1967 or, if they cannot meet us to that extent, a year earlier—at least, without this undue haste. The mark of a classic is that it stands the test of time. It is because this is a shocking pot-boiler that we feel that the Government will not accept our proposal.
Those of us who are familiar with the work of our town halls are well aware of the time that must be taken in the localities to absorb all the vast changes caused by the Bill. The Minister came down earlier in the garb of an apostle in favour of bureaucracy and rather opposed to councillors, but he is only too well aware of the way that those conscientious people are extremely worried about how to cope with all the questions that arise as a result of the Bill. The timetable laid down by the Government places an almost impossible burden upon their shoulders. Therefore, for the sake of smooth working, apart from any question of principle, it is desirable that the Bill should be delayed to the extent suggested in the Amendment.
Being interested particularly in health matters, I should like to follow a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham. When 2,300 general practitioners, who, I assure the Committee, are not necessarily Socialists and do not often support us in the ballot box, come forward with such profound argument about why the Bill will be injurious to the Health Service, the Committee must pay attention. This is an argument against the Bill as a whole. If the arguments of these people carry any weight, there should at least be sufficient time for these people, who often have responsibility for decisions of life and death, to be carried with it rather than against it. This would take time, which is what the Amendment would allow.
The general practitioners raised particularly the question of midwifery service. The statement issued by the local medical committee of the County of London pointed out the present situation that if a midwife working in

one borough is taken ill, another midwife can be sent from another borough. It asked whether independent boroughs would be as quick to do the same and what would happen to a woman in labour.
When discussing this kind of thing I have to be careful not to trespass on the territory of "That Was The Week That Was", because one can imagine bureaucratic telephones ringing and anxious people trying to sort out this tricky problem at ground-floor level. The doctors, however, think not in those terms, but in the serious terms of how to cope with obstetrics when resources are divided in the way that the Bill divides them. If the Bill becomes law, the doctors and the midwifery service will need time to make the necessary arrangements so that the service is maintained and, if possible, improved. This cannot be done in a short time.
It is a complicated service involving the relationship between the general practitioners and the midwives and the whole of the social services, linked with the relationship between local services and the hospital services, the "flying squad". All these things we are talking about are matters of life and death affecting infant mortality and death in childbirth. Yet, for the sake of what seems to be a doctrinaire approach, we are hurrying the Bill through without giving the medical profession time to adjust itself to make the necessary arrangements so that the services may be continued satisfactorily.
I do not know what consultation the Minister has had with the Minister of Health on this matter, but he knows that the Minister promised that after the 10-year plan for hospital building there should be a planned local medical service, and one assumes that this planning will cover not only local health authorities' services but also the medical services at present operated by local medical committees for the local areas. What kind of planning is this, with one Minister making one kind of planning and another Minister making planning of another kind? What kind of co-ordination is it?
Whatever proposals go through, would not the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart), by giving more time, help in the organisation of the administration of


local government medical services? Would not that give us enough time to see whether all these things fit in together, so that they may be co-ordinated, and so that the planning which is going on in one Department and the planning which is going on in another can be coordinated? The fault in the planning of this Government is that they do things piecemeal, unrelated to one another, although they have a bearing on one another and effect one another.
There is the question of organising the changeover in education. Again, more time for that would be most helpful. The Bill provides elsewhere that the essential services of the London County Council in education shall remain under a single education authority. The Conservative and Labour members of Middlesex County Council have unitedly requested a similar kind of thing. We do not know the merit of this, but if we rush this Bill through, and lose this extra period of time, there is no question that the genuine fears of both the Conservative and Labour councillors of Middlesex about education will not be alleviated.
The same argument for more time applies to other provisions of the Bill, for instance, those related to highways and traffic, and the weird arrangement which seems to exist whereby the Minister of Transport has certain powers and the Greater London Council has others. It would seem that, if all these things are to be adjusted satisfactorily, there must be more time to work out all the practical details. If the Bill goes through under the present timetable there will not be adequate time.
I should like to raise once again the consideration that the speedy passing of the Bill at this time affects the youth employment services. Under the Bill it is possible, if a borough does not choose to take up these matters for the responsibility to rest with the Minister of

Labour, but this is at a time when more and more school leavers are finding themselves without jobs and when unemployment is an acute problem. To have these services thrown into the melt-ingpot at this period would surely be a disaster for the youngsters now starting on their careers. Again, we think there must be sufficient time for the adjustment of all these services, and my hon. Friend's Amendment, for these reasons, has considerable merit.
As has been pointed out by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Mr. Elwyn Jones), we are dealing with an area with a population equivalent to that of some of the countries which have seats in the United Nations. We are affecting a wide range of services over a very large geographical area. We are trying to make Uxbridge marry Southend to make a viable unit.

Mr. Pargiter: Uxbridge is supposed to marry Southall, not Southend.

Mr. Pavitt: I was not only thinking of the marriage of Southall and Uxbridge but also of the Greater London Council, with Uxbridge at one end Southend at the other.

Mr. H. P. G. Channon: I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but Southend is not included in the provisions of the Bill.

Mr. Mellish: It will not be long before it is.

Mr. Pavitt: What the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) says is true, but Hornchurch is included and we are moving further and further along the River Thames.
This Amendment should receive the support not only of my right hon. and hon. Friends but also of hon. Members opposite who, while agreeing with the principle of the Bill, could give us a little more time to do the job satisfactorily and well.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Weitzman: I hope that the Minister will pay attention to the powerful arguments put forward for the Amendment not only from this side of the Committee—which will, of course, be suspect by him—but also by the hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty). The hon. and learned Gentleman's case was very powerful apart from the questions raised by my hon. Friends.
We are on the first day of the Committee stage and we have discussed one or two important but short Amendments. Unless the Government adopt their usual method of dealing with important Bills, the Guillotine, it will be a very considerable 'time before the Bill reaches the Statute Book. As has been said more than once, it affects 8 million people in the most important centre of the United Kingdom. Many interests are involved. If the Government are to play the game they must give the Committee and the House itself ample time to consider the Bill and everything it involves.
Now, at the end of January, it is difficult to contemplate the Bill, if full justice is to be paid to its consideration, reaching the Statute Book for a considerable time. What does that mean? This provision we are discussing, for instance, requires the election of councillors under arrangements to be made by incorporation order on a day in May, 1964. How much time will that give? I have the honour to represent what used to be called the "model borough" of Stoke Newington—a very small borough—and part of the Borough of Hackney. Under the Bill, Stoke Newington, Hackney and Shoreditch are to be united in one of these wonderful boroughs the Government contemplate.
But if that is to be done, surely the Minister recognises that after the Bill becomes law a tremendous amount of time will be required administratively before the election of the -new councils can be arranged. That point was not made on this side of the Committee. It was made by the hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East. Is not that an absolutely sound argument? Even though he has voluminous notes I hope that the Minister will pay due attention to that argument. If he agrees that it is a sound one, how can he possibly say

that it would be fair to contemplate the election of borough councillors as early as May, 1964?
That is apart from other arguments—and there are many other sound arguments—in support of. the Amendment. The hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East said that he did not quite agree with the argument about the necessity for a General Election to deal with this matter, because General Elections deal with many matters. That is true, but there is no reason why we should not put before the electorate the consideration of this Measure, as proposed by the Government. in other words, a General Election would give the London electorate an opportunity of considering the changes contemplated by the Bill.
In all justice and fairness, when we contemplate changes of this enormous character is it not fair that the people should judge? If we were talking about an agreed Measure, or a Measure which involved little opposition, one might be able to understand the argument for getting on with the job, but even the Minister must recognise the tremendous volume of opposition which exists to many parts of the Bill—indeed, to the whole principle contained in it. Members of the medical profession, architects, surveyors, and almost every borough affected by the Bill are protesting against these changes.
When the Government are foisting—and I use the word advisedly—a Measure of this kind upon people and boroughs who are not only reluctant to accept it but entirely oppose it, is if not right to hesitate a good deal, and take the opinions of the people concerned—an electorate comprising 8 million people? They should be given the opportunity of considering whether these changes should be made. How can that possibly be done when we have a Measure of this kind, one of whose provisions state that borough councillors shall be elected on some day in May, 1964?
There is the case. It is as simple as that. It does not warrant a lot of argument. Take the pros on one side and the cons on the other. Let the Government act fairly and justly in this matter. If they do, how can they possibly avoid accepting the Amendment and allowing


further time, recognising how unfair and unjust it would be to stick to their provision for an election in May, 1964?

Mr. Richard Marsh: All of us are hoping that the Government will genuinely have second thoughts about the Amendment. It seems extraordinary that they should feel so concerned to rush the Measure through, to an extent which worries many of their own supporters as well as hon. Members on this side of the Committee. There is no hurry for this. London has been here for a long time, now.
Arguments justifying some changes can be put up, although they are arguments which we do not accept, but it is difficult to suggest that the position London has become so catastrophic and incapable of administration that the whole of this massive Bill has to be whipped through Parliament in just over twelve months. The hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) made a valid point. He is not a revolutionary Member. He normally supports the Government in almost anything they do. But he felt constrained to complain bitterly about the Bill and we support him in those complaints.
There are a number of things which could be said about the present date of operations. The hon. and learned Gentleman said he did not think that the Government had to have a mandate for everything that they did, and that is perfectly true. I do not believe in mandated Members. A Government are elected to represent people and it is the job of that Government to govern while they have the support of the electorate. I am not here making a party point. I would never dream of doing so in the circumstances. But I do not think that any hon. Member would claim that the Government at this time have the support of the majority of the population.

Mr. A. R. Wise: rose—

Mr. Marsh: I do not know whether the hon. Member is about to say that he believes that the Government have.

Mr. Wise: I think that the party on this side of the Committee can claim to represent a larger proportion of the electorate than hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Marsh: That is a view which the hon. Gentleman is perfectly entitled to hold. The day that the Labour Party loses a seat with a majority of 8,000 we shall need rather more backing—[HON. MEMBERS: "Fourteen thousand."] Yes but that seat was lost in an extraordinary fashion.
The Government would have to think carefully and produce some evidence before claiming that they represent the majority of the population. But I do not wish to make a party point out of this. I merely state it as a fact. At the moment all the Gallup polls show that the Labour Party has a lead of something like ½ points over the Conservative Party. That does not mean that that will always be the position. But is is becoming increasingly difficult to believe that anything this Government may do in the foreseeable future can do other than add to that lead.
If the Government do not have the support of the electorate, they have no right to push through highly contentious legislation for which they have no sort of mandate, and clearly they could not obtain one at the present time. This is a serious constitutional point. I do not think that a Government with a majority and the support of the nation necessarily have to say that unless a Bill which they are putting before Parliament was in their last General Election manifesto, it cannot be put through. That would reduce us to being governed by mandated delegates. But I do not believe that a Government have the right to force through legislation for which there is virtually no support whatsoever and which they can push through only by the aid of a majority which does not exist in terms of the confidence of the British people. Indeed, the Government have not the confidence of some of the hon. Members opposite.
There is no secret about the fact that there is bound to be a General Election within the next eighteen months. Hon. Members opposite have made their points in the past against us and we have made our points against the party opposite. But it is generally accepted that the present Government are fast taking on the appearance of a national disaster and no


Government can continue on that course for very long. So there must be a General Election by October of next year at the very latest.
If the Government win that General Election, when this matter has been before the electorate, we shall continue to oppose it because we feel strongly about this matter. But no one could challenge the constitutional right of the Government in those circumstances to use their majority to carry the Bill through. To do that and to have the support of the people, and allow the people to have some say in the matter, the Government have only to put off the matter for twelve months at the most. I do not believe that a case can be made that there is such urgency about the matter that the 8½ million people, one-fifth of the total population of the country, cannot be given time in which to express their point of view on an issue on which clearly a large number feel very strongly.
One of the things which has surprised all of us is the intensity with which people feel on the issue of the Bill. That is a good thing. One of the great problems of the modern urban community is the difficulty of obtaining any identification between the individual and the area in which he lives. The sense of community is very difficult to maintain in a large area. But one of the things which has amazed me is the extent to which this feeling clearly exists in London, the biggest Metropolis in the world.
Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee probably received, as I did last week, a letter from a group of wards in North Epsom and Ewell—on the Southern Railway line—and at the top of it was a list of the local bodies who were appealing to Conservative Members, Socialist Members and the Liberal Member to try to prevent the Bill from being passed because they felt strongly about it. There was the Epsom and Ewell Conservative Association, the Epsom Labour Party, the Epsom Trades Council, the Epsom Churches organisation and the Chamber of Commerce. All these people feel strongly about what is proposed in the Bill affecting their community—and it is a good thing that they should feel strongly about it.
10.45 p.m.
Why should they be denied the right of expressing a point of view about it?

Have we reached the stage at which the gentleman in Whitehall has the right to decide the future of 9 million people and it is regarded as impertinence if they ask for twelve months in which to give a decision on it? Is it unreasonable that they should ask at least to be permitted to express their point of view? If the Government retain their majority after the next election they are entitled to ignore that point of view, but are not these people entitled to express a point of view?
The right hon. Gentleman set up a Commission, and that is his justification for much of the action which he undertakes. But he has ignored many of the Commission's recommendations and has changed others where they were inconvenient. In a democracy, he cannot deal with the destinies of 9 million people by a Commission, particularly when it is clear that the Government do not represent the people or a majority of them.
The Government of the day introduced a Bill in 1884 to extend at that time the city boundaries and to provide for what eventually became the basis of the London County Council as we know it. It was not until 1894 that the boroughs began to be created—ten years later. Since that time there have been seventy years of evolution. One can have different points of view about the form which the L.C.C. should take. That is legitimate. It is a matter of opinion. But I do not think that anyone on either side of the Committee would seriously suggest that the L.C.C. can be regarded as bad local government at present. It can fairly be argued that changes should be made in it, but by and large it is accepted as one of the greatest municipal authorities in the world. It has taken seventy years to evolve.
Yet the Government, without discussing the matter in a General Election, produce a Bill which creates enormous opposition throughout the area concerned, causes dismay and heartache among a large number of their own supporters and add, "To suggest waiting until after the next General Election so that the electors may express their point of view is unreasonable and should not be accepted."
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will regard this as a reasonable request


for the Opposition to make. This is a big and fundamental issue. If the Government make a mistake in the Bill, it will cause a great deal of difficulty to one-fifth of the population of this country. The Government obviously believe that they are right, but to rush a Bill of this type after this length of time can be justified on one ground only. That was contained in the Commission's Report, where it said that the size of London had made it a major political prize. Do not let us be pious about this. We are all politicians in this Chamber and obviously we are interested in prizes for our own party. The Government are setting out to reorganise the London County Council area against the wishes of the people concerned, without permitting them the right to express their opinion in a General Election, and doing it so quickly that many hon. Members on both sides of the Committee feel that irreparable damage could be done to services which are among the finest in the world.
To do all that for purely party political gain because the Government feel they have lost the next General Election and will not have the opportunity to do this after would be a despicable action and one which I feel sure the right hon. Gentleman, having heard the convincing arguments advanced by my hon. Friends, would not wish to be a party to. I hope that he will immediately rise and apologise for not having made the Amendment in the first place.

Mr. B. T. Parkin: I, too, hope that the Minister will accept the Amendment, although I have not any great expectations that he will. However, I hope that in his own defence he will give the same sort of assurance that he has given from time to time today, namely that he will look at the arguments carefully before Report, which it seems will not be for a considerable time.
The Minister will recollect certain difficulties in getting a very nefarious Act called the Rent Act through the House of Commons. That was a situation where the Government had made a decision and told their supporters that it needed great courage, would result in short-term political unpopularity, and could succeed only if it was pushed through quickly and forcefully. Many

of the Minister's supporters at the time pleaded for delay in one or two little matters. The Opposition certainly pleaded for delay. The answer was always, "No". In the end the Minister had to produce a pitifully inadequate little amending Act where small justice was done in a limited way to a few but many who in the meantime had had to make their own arrangements were denied even the benefits of the amending Act.
Even if the Minister and the Government are right in their courage and determination to bring about this massive and important change, it is less than likely that they will be right on every point. It is less than likely that they will see now exactly and that their advisers can see exactly how the immense detailed changes in administration of the different welfare services will work out in different boroughs or areas. I beg the Minister to try to find a way of leaving a door open for reconsideration of some of these vitally important human matters which have already been referred to.
One cannot overstress the difference between one area and another in its capacity to take over such subjects as child care from the London County Council. One cannot help thinking about the lack of experience, the difficulty of finding trained and experienced personnel, and the immense social damage which may result. The Minister does not need me to remind him at this hour of the night of the statistical facts of the case in my constituency, of the areas where in certain parts there have been twenty times the national average of children taken away from the care of their families and placed in the care of local authorities. He does not need to be told the statistics about fatherless children in an area like mine. He must know that, wealthy, successful and honourable as the City of Westminster is, it cannot take over these orphans of Paddington, run the necessary organisation and understand exactly just what these and similar community problems are unless there is a reasonable period for recruitment.
It is very important that we should retain the best talents available in these places. At present they are tending to scuttle away and look for their own interests—and who can blame them? They are bound to be thinking that, with so much uncertainty, they cannot


be sure that their parts will succeed. Let it be proved to them by a detailed working out and assessment of the staff available, and the qualities of that staff, that it can succeed. Let them see the blue prints for their areas.
When talking of staff I am not thinking so much about the great organising figures, but those who are at the very root of the matter; the welfare officers and those who visit homes. They are the most important first contacts. They must be told something about their communities and the future of them. This is most important, especially when one remembers that different parts of London differ from one another in their impact an these different social problems.
We had an interesting example in this connection over the Housing Act. This is not the time to criticise the working of such Measures, but I would like to quote some facts about two boroughs. In one case the borough, with a Conservative majority, refused even to accept the recommendation that it should call a special meeting of its establishment committee to look for new staff and to implement the Act. Another borough, also with a Conservative majority, was on the ball and was immediately recruiting new staff. It so happens that those two boroughs will be amalgamated under the Bill. Someone will have some headaches.
I hope that there will be an improvement in the good will and intention towards the Bill, but that cannot happen unless time is allowed for careful blueprint preparation. This good will cannot exist unless there is a prepared assessment of the number and quality of the junior staff required and an assessment of whether that staff will be available. Can the Minister tell us anything about preparations of this kind? Surely it is a little grotesque of him to expect this sort of thing to take shape within about twelve months of the Bill becoming law?
I urge the right hon. Gentleman to consult his Service colleagues. Let him find out from the Air Ministry, for example, at what date it was necessary to begin to recruit intelligence officers so that they might be trained and fully equated with what they had to do in time for one of the major invasions. Let him

inquire how many times the number of such officers had to be reconsidered and how it was necessary to allow for wastage, inefficiency, fresh selection, and so on. There is not a Ministry in Whitehall, except the right hon. Gentleman's, which would be prepared to tackle such a gigantic task at such short notice, it is almost as though the Ministry is determined to demonstrate its own cruelty in thrusting this knife into the welfare services which are so efficiently run by the L.C.C.
Is the Ministry determined to prove that it can be done? It seemed determined to push the Rent Act through, to demonstrate that it did not mind if a few fell by the wayside and if minor injustices occurred. Only pressure from the Government's supporters made it bring in a pitiful Amending Act which had to be rushed through its Committee stage upstairs. We were told, in effect, "If you do not take it as it is people will suffer." Many of them did suffer, including the loss of their homes in circumstances which could never be put right. Of course, the Minister knows that there is force in these arguments. He is the sort of person—

It being Eleven o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

BRITISH MUSEUM [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to alter the composition of the Trustees of the British Museum, to provide for the separation from the British Museum of the British Museum (Natural History), to make new provision with respect to the regulation of the two Museums and their collections, in place of that made by the British Museum Act 1753 and enactments amending or supplementing that Act, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) any increase in expenditure out of moneys provided by Parliament which is attributable to the provisions of the said Act of the present Session enabling objects comprised in the collections of the British Museum or the British Museum (Natural History) to be kept in premises additional to those in which they were required to be kept immediately before the commencement of the Act;


(b) the payment into the Exchequer to the net proceeds of any sale or other disposition of the property regulated by the British Museum (Purchase of Land) Act 1894.

Resolution agreed to.

BETTING, GAMING AND LOTTERIES BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time and passed, without Amendment.

BETTING DUTIES BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time and passed, without Amendment.

COLLEGES OF ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY (STAFF SALARIES)

Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. I. Fraser.]

11.5 p.m.

Mr. George Thomas: I wish to draw attention to a matter where there is, I believe, discrimination against the colleges of advanced technology. I apologise that the title of this Adjournment debate in the notices about the building is slightly misleading, but I wish to deal largely with questions of salary and salary negotiation.
In 1961, the Minister of Education made an important announcement concerning the colleges of advanced technology. In an effort to raise their status and put them on a level with the universities, he removed the C.A.T.s from the control of local education authorities, established for them governing bodies, and, at the same time as he announced their promotion to direct grant status, he added that, if the colleges were to be able to attract staff of the quality they needed, they must be in a position to offer to their staffs salaries comparable with those paid to university staff carrying similar responsibilities. I think that we all appreciated the reason for that statement, because the matter of recruitment of the right quality and the right numbers of teachers was of the first importance.
Obviously, the Minister felt that it was too urgent a matter to await the report of the Robbins Committee. But, since the 1961 announcement, the Ministry of Education has done nothing, as far as I can see, to establish salary negotiating machinery for these colleges of advanced technology. It is important to remember in this connection that university staff deal with the University Grants Committee and with the Treasury, but the Minister of Education carries full responsibility for the staff of the C.A.T.s. I think that I am right in that.
On 28th December last, the Treasury announced the long overdue increase for university teachers. The House will remember the great debate we had here, when the Opposition attacked the Government for their dilatory treatment of the university teachers. This 10 per cent. increase was announced the day after Boxing Day. At the same time, the Minister referred the remuneration of academic staff of universities to the National Incomes Commission for review under paragraph 4 (ii) of the National Incomes Commission White Paper, Cmnd. 1844, and the Treasury added that this reference would also cover colleges of advanced technology.
This reference has been made without any consultation whatever with the professional bodies who represent the teachers serving in the colleges of advanced technology. It sets a dangerous precedent. It is bound to alarm other professional bodies. Is negotiation on salaries to cease in the future? Do the Government propose to anticipate salary claims from other unions in this way and shelve their own responsibility by pushing on to the National Incomes Commission a duty which rightly belongs to them?
Lack of consultation with those who represent the teachers in the colleges of advanced technology is a great error, but there is another disturbing aspect of the Treasury's announcement. The Treasury has announced that it has invited the University Grants Committee to recommend how this additional sum should be distributed between the various grades of staff In its announcement, the Treasury goes on to say that
Any distribution recommended by the University Grants Committee will involve some consequent adjustment as from the same


date to the salaries of the more senior staff at the colleges of advanced technology.
This means that the large majority of teachers in these colleges will get no further increase until the National Incomes Commission reports. It means also that they have to wait until after the Robbins Committee reports, which, the Minister has recently indicated, is still some months away.
I believe this to be a most unfortunate error. It means that the Minister has postponed still further parity with the universities, which he declared and we believed to be urgent eighteen months ago. It also means that when the new Burnham salary soaks, which are being negotiated, come into operation, as they should, on 1st April next, when the present scales end, the majority of teachers in the advanced technology colleges will be worse off than those in technical colleges to whom the Burnham award will apply. They will be the only category of teachers who will fail to get an increase in the spring.
When the Treasury refers to some of the more senior members of the staff of colleges of advanced technology, we are left in doubt. Those who staff the colleges want to know how senior a man must be to qualify for this increase. Must he be a senior or principal lecturer? The overwhelming majority of teachers in these colleges are on scales which, at the maximum, are substantially lower than the new scales given to university lecturers.
I understand from the reply given by the Minister to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley), shortly before Christmas, that 1,022 members of staff of the colleges of advanced technology are below the level of senior lecturer. Only 834 are of the level of senior lecturer or above. A lecturer in a college of advanced technology is fixed at a maximum of £1,800 and a senior lecturer can rise to £2,000. Under the recent award, however, a man in a comparable grade in a university gets a maximum of approximately £2,150 plus family allowances, which can amount to a substantial sum.
In all the colleges of advanced technology, 55 per cent. of the staff are below the status of senior lecturer. I want to know whether they are cut out from

any increase under the present award. In Birmingham, which is the best example, only 45 per cent. are below the status of senior lecturer. I regret to say that in the Welsh College of Advanced Technology, 67 per cent. of the staff are below the status of senior lecturer. I therefore want to ask the Minister one or two questions.
What prevents him from settling the problem of, first, upsetting the university teachers and, now, upsetting the teachers in the colleges of advanced technology? What prevents him from establishing parity between both these educational institutions? As someone said recently, this is the only country in the world in which these colleges of advanced technology would not be called technical universities. If they are to be given the status which I am sure the House wants them to have it must come in the salary field as well as in every other field. Secondly, will the Minister undertake tonight that those who fall below the grade of senior staff will not be worse off after April than teachers who serve in the technical colleges to whom the Burnham Committee Report will apply?
Thirdly, will he give an undertaking that steps will now be taken to provide salary negotiating machinery for the colleges of advanced technology as exists in—I suppose—every other walk of life in this country? I hope that he will not tell me he will refer this question of negotiating machinery to the National Incomes Commission, because it is his responsibility and his alone. The Minister has it in his power to act quickly in this regard, and I believe he can restore a great deal of good will if he is prepared so to do.
My fourth question is: will he advise the governing bodies of some of the colleges of advanced technology, including the Welsh college, of the desirability of revising their staff gradings? The introduction of these colleges of advanced technology is one of the most welcome improvements in recent years, but I believe they cannot serve the nation as they ought unless those who are employed in their service feel that they are given the proper status and absolute parity with those who serve in the universities of the land. I am grateful to the Minister for the patience with which he


has listened to me, and I can only hope that he will be able to give satisfactory answers to my questions.

11.17 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Christopher Chatawav): The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) has laid stress, as I knew he would, and he was right to do, upon the need for parity of esteem, status and treatment between the colleges of advanced technology and universities, and it was from this desire that his questions to me stemmed tonight. I would hope to show that it is that very consideration which has led my right hon. Friend to take these steps which he has proposed.
The House will forgive me if, in seeking to make this explanation, I start from the time before 1st April, 1962. When the colleges of advanced technology were maintained or assisted by the local education authorities like other technical colleges and the salaries of the academic staffs in them were determined by the Burnham Technical Committee, it meant those staffs had responsibility and qualifications similar to those of university staffs although negotiated under a different system and on a different timetable. To remove this anomaly the Minister proposed as part of his general proposals for transferring C.A.T.s to direct grant that the salaries of those staffs should be related to and negotiated at the same time as those for university staffs. At the time when the proposals for transfer of C.A.T.s to direct grant were under discussion in 1961 the Minister said that if his proposals were accepted he would open discussions with a view to setting up suitable machinery for the negotiation of salaries. Therefore, it has been clear from that time that one consequence of the transfer would be that salaries in the C.A.T.s would be related to those of university staffs.

Mr. G. Thomas: All the staffs.

Mr. Chataway: This was the intention, certainly, and this was the ideal to which we were working, and this gives the answer to the second question which the hon. Gentleman put to me, that of the relationship between teachers in technical colleges and those in colleges of advanced

technology. Clearly, the intention is that the teachers in CA.T.s should have their salaries related to the universities.
Towards the end of 1961, the Minister began discussions with the staff associations for the colleges and subsequently with the national representative bodies—the Association of University Teachers and the Association of Teachers in Technical Institutions—on the right form of negotiating machinery. Meantime, the salaries of the staffs continued, even after 1st April, 1962, to be regulated according to the provisions of the Burnham Reports.
The hon. Member will appreciate that the two salary structures—university and Burnham—were different and that it would not be easy to arrange a smooth transition from the Burnham system to a new one more closely related to the university system. By the end of last summer, broad agreement had been reached between the Ministry and the national teachers' bodies concerned on the main outlines of the negotiating procedure to be followed.
In the ordinary way the next step would have been to bring this machinery into play at the same time as the normal university salary negotiating procedure. This would have implemented the Minister's original proposal that CAT. salaries should be reviewed at the same time as university salaries. At this time, however, the Government had been considering the position with regard to university salary negotiations and eventually came to the conclusion that the most appropriate way of dealing with the review of university salaries was to refer it to the National Incomes Commission under Paragraph 4 (ii) of the National Incomes Commission White Paper. The hon. Member will see in that paragraph the limitations that are set upon this procedure, and that may allay some of his fears as to the precedent set on this occasion.
The question then arose of whether CAT. salaries should be referred at the same time to the Commission, and it was decided that they should. This seems a right and, indeed, inevitable decision if one accepts, as I think one must and as I think the hon. Member and the House wish to, that these staffs are doing very similar jobs of work to those in universities.
The Commission has not yet settled the procedure for the submission of evidence by all the interested parties, but when it has done so the various bodies concerned, such as the Association of University Teachers and the Association of Teachers in Technical Institutions, will be fully informed, and the hon. Member can rest assured that arrangements will be made for the preparation and presentation of evidence by the interested parties.
Now we come to arrangements made for an immediate increase in university salaries and consequential adjustments to C.A.T. salaries. The arrangements for the N.I.C. Review will take some time to prepare and the Government accept that an immediate increase for university teachers is urgently needed. Unlike the C.A.T.s, these teachers have received no increase since January, 1960, other than a 3 per cent. rise in April, 1962, which was allocated wholly to junior grades.
Thus, as the House will know, it has been decided to authorise an immediate overall increase of 10 per cent. in university salaries. Again, the question arises of whether something should be done for C.A.T.s at the same lime, and, again, my right hon. Friend's view is determined by the fact that there should be a relation between university and C.A.T. salaries. This means that there must be an adjustment of C.A.T. salaries, but an adjustment is not equally necessary for all the C.A.T. staffs. It must be remembered that owing to the very substantial increase which C.A.T. staffs received as a result of the last Burnham settlement in January, 1962, junior staffs in the colleges at present enjoy an advantage over all the junior grades in the universities.
For example, an assistant lecturer in a university is paid on a scale of £900-£1,050, whereas an assistant lecturer, Grade B, in a college of advanced technology may start at £1,000—according to my information—and sometimes more, rising to about £1,500. The university lecturer scale is at present £1,150-£1,950, whereas the scale applicable to grades of lecturer and senior lecturer in a college of advanced technology, which correspond to the university lecturer grade, ranges between £1,600 and £2,000.
Whatever may be decided about the distribution of a university increase—

and that has to be decided after the recommendation of the University Grants Committee—it seems certain that the remuneration of the junior grades in colleges of advanced technology will continue to compare favourably with that of corresponding grades in the universities.
This led my right hon. Friend to the conclusion that adjustments in the C.A.T. salaries should be limited to the more senior grades. The precise adjustments called for will be a matter for discussion with the teachers' associations and the representatives of the chairmen and principals of the colleges, and meetings will be held with these bodies as soon as it is known what increases are to be approved for the various grades of university staff. Here, again, my right hon. Friend's concern is to secure as near a parallel as possible between the staff of the colleges of advanced tehnology and the staffs of the universities.
The hon. Member asked me exactly what the word "senior" means, and whether it will be limited solely to senior lecturers, or will include lecturers. On that point, I am not able to give? him a specific answer, for a reason which I hope he will understand. It is that, clearly, if we wish to maintain this attitude towards parity, we must await the recommendations of the University Grants Committee and the decisions made upon the University Grants Committee's recommendations, and the way in which increases are made in the staffs of senior lecturers at the colleges—and exactly what will be the dividing line between "senior" and "junior" in this respect must await the recommendations of the U.G.C. and the discussions that will be held with the principals and chairmen, and the associations.

Mr. G. Thomas: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the A.T.T.I. has direct access to the University Grants Committee to deal with the salaries question?

Mr. Chataway: No. The University Grants Committee will make recommendations only on the way in which it considers the increases ought to be allocated among university staffs, but it will clearly be upon the basis of that recommendation that the discussions between my right hon. Friend and the teachers' associations will take place.

Mrs. Eirene White: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that while we understand that there may be some difficulty over this intermediate period, this is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs. The salaries for the staffs in the colleges of advanced technology are being settled at one remove by a body which has no connection with them, and not only on which they have no representation but to which they have no right of access or—as happens with the U.G.C.—membership, so that it will not be composed of persons with direct knowledge of the institutions about which they are making recommendations.
We hope that the whole situation will be cleared up as soon as possible, and that far more satisfactory negotiating arrangements can shortly be made.

Mr. Chataway: I accept that it is a difficult transitional period. But I do not want to leave the impression that the decision about increases for C.A.T. staffs would be dictated by the decision arrived at as a result of the recommendations of the University Grants Committee. Obviously, if we wish to maintain something near parity, the recommendations of the University Grants Committee will be relevant. But they will be followed by discussions with the teachers' associations and representatives of the chairmen and principals of the colleges. After those discussions decisions about increases for the senior staff in the C.A.T.s will be made. So there is no question of their receiving an absolute diktat from the University Grants Committee on which they are not represented.

Mrs. White: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the matter

would be greatly simplified if the C.A.T.s could be turned into universities?

Mr. Chataway: From the point of view of this discussion there can be no disagreeing that that would simplify my task tonight. But for the wider questions, which the hon. Gentleman did not really raise, like so many others, we shall have to wait for Robbins.
This leaves the question of the college establishments, promotions and upgrading to which the hon. Gentleman referred. On those, I can reassure him. The question of the appropriate establishment of staff in any college is quite separate from the appropriate level of remuneration for each grade. The governing bodies of the colleges fix their own establishments of staff subject to the overall financial limitation set by the amount of the annual budget approved by my right hon. Friend and to the limit on the number of posts at head of department, reader and principle lecturer level. These limits are fixed in relation to the teaching needs of the college and the financial resources available from year to year. They are not affected by the decision concerning the salary scales for each grade.
Having had the good fortune to visit Loughborough College of Advanced Technology last week, I fully share the conviction of the hon. Gentleman that these colleges must be recognised as equivalent in status to the universities, and I hope that I have been able to reassure him and the House that throughout my right hon. Friend has been acting in that conviction.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes to Twelve o'clock.